The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil,
but because of those who look on and do nothing.

~~~ Albert Einstein



Monday, April 30, 2007

William Bishop

As William Bishop was making his rounds at Disney's Swan Resort, he most likely didn't notice the gentleman who had been keening watching him with increased interest. And, as he lead the little girl away from the crowded area- it's almost certain that he didn't know that he was being followed by spying eyes.

But, whether Bishop knew it or not, he had indeed caught the wondering eye of a father, whose children Bishop had come close to earlier. After raising the man's suspicions, every move Bishop made was watched... and studied. So when Bishop began leading the young girl away, he was walking right into a trap.

WFTV- Investigators believe 61-year-old William Bishop has been molesting children for a long time. This time, an 11-year-old boy said he witnessed the crime in the bushes at the Swan Resort at Walt Disney World on Friday.

In fact, before being caught in the act, he allegedly made an earlier attempt on children, whose father then kept a close eye on Bishop as he found another child.

"He then sees the suspect take the child and go into a little wooded area by the pool," Mankewich explained.

As the man's oldest son followed, the 11-year-old boy allegedly witnessed Bishop fondling the 8-year-old girl and touching himself. That's when lifeguards were called in to hold Bishop until deputies arrived.


What is even more sickening is that Bishop had a small handheld video camera on him, leading police to believe that he filmed the abuse, and that he has likely done this before.

I've said it before, and I will continue to say it- the very best defense our children have from these predators is us. We have a incredible responsibility to watch out for not just our children, but every child within eye shot.

Police strongly believe that Bishop has had other victims, that the hunt he has been on has been finely tuned. While we will likely never know just how many have fell victim to Bishop- one things is very clear, he was stopped, he was caught because someone took time to notice his behavior, and took action to make sure that any foul intentions he had would be caught.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Carnival

One of my most favorite bloggers (in both the non crime and crime world) hosted this weeks Carnival of the True Crime Blogs. So, if you'd like to see what some of the best blogs around have been working on this week, head over to Home Sweet Home's place.

AMW This Week

America's Most Wanted has captured 936 fugitives to date, with the help of viewers of the show, and readers of the website. We have the chance to increase the number of captures, and it simply takes a small amount of time on your part.

This week's episode will be covering a variety of cases, some of which I'm highlighting today.

Dublin, California…DR. TONY SHIU…Police say California doctor Tony Shiu not only drugged two patients, he also sodomized one of them. When cops went to his home to investigate, they found nearly 450 photos they think he'd taken of his patients -- unconscious and in various stages of undress.


Dr. David Cornbleet's family and friends have been actively working to provide as much known information about his killer as possible to the public. They've persued media attention t get the word out, and used the popular online community MySpace in order to further their search for justice by setting up a page geared at finding his killer. This week, they've teamed with AMW to bring the story to National levels, and hopefully find the answers they've been seeking:

Chicago, Illinois…UNKNOWN DR. CORNBLEET KILLER…Dr. David Cornbleet was a respected doctor and a loving father and husband. He was a kind-hearted and hardworking person. But for some unknown reason, his life was brutally ended on October 24, 2006.


CAUGHT Fontana, California…DANIEL PEREZ CAPTURE…After more than seven years on the run, authorities say an accused murderer is finally facing the music for his crimes. Mexican authorities picked up Daniel Perez in Mazatlan, Mexico after US justice officials received a tip about his hideout back in January of 2006. For the past year, Perez has been fighting extradition back to the US, but now the accused murderer is back in Southern California to stand trial.


This weeks show has a bonus feature, which I'm sure you'll enjoy:

Miss America 2007, Lauren Nelson has taken her crown where no crown has gone before- straight to the online pedophiles who would be preying on children. Together with AMW's Host John Walsh, Miss Nelson went undercover, pretending to be a underage girl online. Using photos of herself when she was younger, Miss Nelson waited for contact to be made by would be predators. When it came time for the accused to meet, they came face to face with Host John Walsh, and police officers.

In addition to following the action as Walsh and Nelson take part in the sting operation, the broadcast will include tips for parents on how to protect their kids online.


For more information, and behind the scenes details of the sting including video blogs from the producer and Miss Nelson, please visit the AMW website.

For these cases and others, be sure to tune in Saturday Night at 9:00pm on your local Fox Station.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Bernice Joseph

The mobile home that 23 year old Bernice Joseph lived in with her boyfriend accidentally caught fire and burned down, killing Joseph. The boyfriend, Stanley Burson DeHart III told police that he had went outside to smoke, and looked behind him to see the mobile home engulfed in flames. He claimed that he was unable to get back into the home to save his girlfriend.

At least, that's the story he was hoping police would believe. Police however, have come up with a different conclusion altogether.

Bernice wasn't 23, in fact she wasn't even Bernice Joseph- she was a 16 year old run away who had been missing from her Hollywood, Fl for more than a year by the name of Talia Ashley.

Police also say that the deadly fire wasn't the cause of her death:

View Story- At a news conference Monday night, Anderson County sheriff’s deputies announced that Talia Ashley, whose whose body was found in the burned mobile home, died from being hit in the head.

The fire started at about 9:30 a.m. at the mobile home on Beta Street. Firefighters said it was destroyed within about 10 minutes..


While Talia had been a excellent student, she had begun rebelling as a teen. Her mother said that she started fighting more, leading to counseling that never seemed to work. Talia had had a habit of running away, but had always returned home.

Talia had been reported as a run away on New Years day 2005, only to return a few days later. After that, Talia ran away again, although it was not reported. This time, she didn't return home although she called her brother often on the phone. Police believe that is when she met DeHart, and that at some point around then, she moved with him to South Carolina.

In South Carolina, Talia and DeHart took up residing in a trailer next to one that his mother lived in although police have been reluctant to comment on the relationship between the two. Little has been said about DeHart's background, however his MySpace page seems to indicate that he had lived in Hollywood long enough prior to the move to South Caroline to make a few friends. The MySpace page entitled "Ruff Productions" also gives a hint about his interest in music and perhaps an attempt to become involved in the music industry.

Listed under his "Influences" he states "All the musicians, artists, poets and literaries throughout world history that actually have something to say through their expression." And I have to wonder if he was trying to actually say something when he wrote:

About Ruff Draft Productions
Spiralling down into the center of the black hole within the mind. An infinity of mental chaos. Whether psychosis or overwhelming thought, like being in the middle of an ocean with no boat, no life preserver nor even the ability to swim.


Despite having been in South Carolina for almost a year, it's obvious by comments left on his friends MySpace pages that things weren't going the way DeHart had planned or hoped. In one of the comments he left back in January of this year, he briefly describes the lack of work and "good weed" available in the area:


Rednecks as far as the eye can see, a bunch of gangsta wannabes that don't do anything they claim, fat women the size of very large pick-up trucks, money comes in small amounts over long intervals (unless you're a crack dealer, then you can make millions), crackheads and crackwhores on almost every block of this hood, too many cops for the area, hard to find good weed in good quantity and there are like 3 times as many residents as there are jobs.


Whether DeHart was really disturbed or depressed from the lack of excitement available to him in South Caroline, or whether it was just a domestic violence scene turned deadly isn't known. What is known is that moments after repeatedly hitting Talia in the head with a stone until she died, police say that he called her family back in Florida. After over a year, the message wasn't what they were expecting. Talia's mother quoted DeHart as saying that Talia had been in a tragic trailer accident, and that he was just calling to let them know. It's believe that shortly after that DeHart started the fire, then waited for firefighters and police to arrive.

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Kenneth Glenn Hinson

Verdict update at bottom of post.

Kenneth Hinson, the man accused of kidnapping two South Carolina teenagers, raping them, and holding them hostage in an underground dungeon in his backyard, has been taking his case to a jury over the last week or so.

Previous Posts On Hinson:
Kenneth Hinson, In Court
Captured! Kenneth Glenn Hinson
Kenneth Glenn Hinson

Other Crime Blogs Following the Case:
Crime Scene Blog
While the jury heard testimony supporting the victims claims of being raped by Hinson via DNA found on one of their t-shirts, the defense was also prepared with some of it's own dramatic testimony.

Hinson, a sex offender convicted of a rape of a 12-year-old girl in 1991, took the stand today, insisting on his innocence.

Hinson testified on the witness stand that during his four days in hiding, he believed the police were after him, not because of the rape and kidnapping of the girls- but because of the drug run he had been planning. He also claimed that the "dungeon" the girls were found in was built to store and hide the drugs.
SCNow.com- He also said he’d had four pounds of marijuana hidden in the secret room and planned to sell the drugs on a welding job in New York the week he was arrested.

Hinson also said it took him two years to complete the room and that he’d used it on at least three separate occasions to hide marijuana.


As for the charges stemming from the rapes, he denied assaulting the girls, and instead testified that he had had consensual sex with both girls earlier in the day, prior to their kidnappings.

MyrtleBeachOnline- A convicted sex offender accused of raping two teens in a dungeon-like space behind his home testified Saturday that he had consensual sex with both his accusers just hours before the alleged crimes took place.

Kenneth Glenn Hinson said one of 17-year-olds then asked him for money.


He also testified that he had sex with one of the victims a week prior, after she asked him to buy a sex toy for her, and then demonstrated to him how to use it.

The Star- Hinson testified Saturday that the girls asked him to purchase a sexual device about a week before the alleged crimes and, after he did, one of them demonstrated to him how it worked.

He described in detail his trip to a sex shop with one of his accusers. When Hinson's attorney, Rick Hoefer, asked him to look inside a brown paper evidence bag containing the device, Hinson told the court, "It's the one I paid for or it's an identical twin.''
While on cross by the defense, one of the victims did admit to going to a adult store, giving Hinson $40.00 to by a sex toy for her (she would not have been able to purchase it herself due to her age) but denied Hinson's claims that she used it in his presence. The Defense also questioned the victims statements to hospital workers the night of the attack, written statements and their testimony on the stand:

SCNOW::
The woman said her written statement to police didn't mention that Hinson had a gun or a pocket knife on March 14, 2006, when the assaults allegedly occurred north of Hartsville. She said Wednesday in court, however, that Hinson had a knife and that she saw the outline of a gun in the back pocket of the his jeans.
[...]
The woman said during one interview that a knife was pulled on her while she was sexually assaulted, said Elizabeth Cook, a former nurse practitioner at the Pee Dee Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Assault's Elizabeth Pettigrew Durant Children's Center in Florence.

The woman testified that Hinson never pulled a gun on her, despite statements she said she made during an interview at the center.

Defense witness Tim Beasley also testified saying that he had previously overheard the victims telling a woman they had lied about the kidnapping and rape because they had stolen drugs from Hinson, and were concerned that he'd retaliate against them if he found out.

The story of the underground dungeon, and the attacks on two teenage girls as offered by them is much different than what has been presented by the defense. The girls have claimed that while they knew Hinson prior to the kidnappings, they had never been in nor known about the underground dungeon. They testified that while Hinson kidnapped them while they were sleeping in the middle of the night. After being taken to the dungeon, raped and bound with tape, they struggled to break free. They have stated they were in the room around 6 to 7 hours before they were able to escape.

SCNOW: They also testified the defendant threatened to kill them if they made noise or tried to escape.

“He said he’d grind us up in a meat grinder and feed us to his dog,” the woman who testified Wednesday afternoon said, echoing the other woman’s testimony.
[...]
The women said Hinson carried them separately from their trailer, which stood next to his; bound their mouths, hands and feet with duct tape; and placed them in the secret room.

“You’re saying he picked you up and carried you out without waking (the other girl) up?” Hoefer asked.

“Yes, sir,” the woman said.


The other victim in the case had previously testified that they were in the room around three hours, before being able to escape. Both girls denied having engaged in drug use with Hinson, and both testified that they were unaware of the dungeon that would have been close to the trailer they shared, which was directly beside the one shared by Hinson, and the mother and brother of one of the victims.

The teens knew Hinson well and lived next door to his mobile home.

One of the teens, whose mother and brother lived with Hinson, said there was no running water at their home so they bathed at Hinson's house.

Electricity for the teens' mobile home was rigged through a pipe from Hinson's home and their doors were secured only with a coat hanger stretched across several nails, one of the teens testified.


When the case first made headlines, after the girls came forward last year, there was little doubt in anyone's mind that this previously convicted sex offender had done this. Now, as the trial starts to come to a close, the question of his guilt will be in the hands of 12 jurors. Will they be as quick to convict as most of the nation was when the photos of the dungeon were published alongside the reports of the assaults on the girls by the police? With both sides demonstrating their unfettering positions, it seems that the prosecution and Hinson evenly summed up their prospective sides in one short exchange:

"Is it true the only thing more carefully constructed than that underground dungeon was the story you told this jury yesterday?" prosecutor Jennifer Evans asked.

"All I can say is that it matches the evidence," Hinson replied.


>>Update<<

The verdict came in, after fours hours of deliberations by the jury.

Hinson was found not guilty on all counts, dodging a mandatory life sentence under a "two strikes" law in the state of SC.

A South Carolina man accused of raping two teen girls in an underground bunker has been found not guilty of kidnapping, sex crimes and assault with intent to kill.

Kenneth Glenn Hinson, 48, wiped his eyes and mouth and appeared to cry after the jury read its verdict. As he was escorted from the courtroom, Hinson said, "The verdict says it all."


He is still currently being held however, due to pending burglary charges.

Friday, April 20, 2007

Randall Poore

Randall Poore is a convicted sex offender. He's just been arrested... again.

And, in what is likely the most angering comment I've read lately- police responded to his recent arrest:

The problem is we saw this coming, and seemed to have been able to prevent it, which is very frustrating,” said Police Chief Tom Casady.


Last week it seems Poore met two young girls near his home, and somehow convinced them to return to him home with him. At some point while they were inside the home, Poore was able to take sexually explicit photos of the girls. He also is accused of "sexually touching" the older child, who is 13.

Prior to that offense, another situation took place on March 26:
The twice-convicted sex offender — who finished a 4- to 7-year sentence on an attempted first-degree sexual assault charge out of Dawson County in June — created more than a blip on Casady’s radar after an incident March 26.

That day, a 12-year-old girl says a man pushing a bike approached to her in the 3300 block of Cleveland Avenue around 3:45 p.m. on her way home from school. She later would tell police he walked alongside her and asked if he could take pictures of her with his phone. The girl was scared and pretended to be home. She cut through a backyard and ran home.

That night, she told her aunt what happened and together they looked at the Sex Offender Registry and found the man’s picture.

It was Poore, Casady said.

Police arrested him on suspicion of disturbing the peace and looked for a more serious charge that fit. Because he hadn’t asked her to get into a car, it wasn’t child enticement, a felony.


Police say that they sent out notices, and attempted to warn the community- but that the warning didn't "stick strongly enough", allowing this most recent offense to happen.

Ya'll know what I think: lock em up, throw away the damn key and forget about them all.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

True Crime Blogs Carnival

It is once again time for the Carnival of the TRUE crime blogs. You know what those are- blogs that focus on TRUE crime, rather than just publishing whatever lied filled bullshit they choose. (yep, someone is a bit moody this morning)

Anyway, Jules from The Cellar, a TRUE crime blog focused on the life and crimes of Joseph Duncan, played hostess this week, and did an excellent job of filling the carnival with some of the best TRUE crime cases you'll find on the web.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Getting it right

Every time there is a tragedy, there is a rush to publish as much information about the situation as possible. Over the last few days, we've seen faulty information fed to the public time after time concerning the shooting at Virginia Tech. And while I understand the desire for people to know what happened as quickly as possible, I would think that providing correct information is even more important.

The MSM (mainstream media), including high profile news personalities, have made mistake after mistake in releasing false information on the Virginia Tech shootings. And, sadly, so have many bloggers.

The truth of the matter really is that some people will do anything for ratings. Regardless of what pain they cause, and what lies they spread.

One of the victims of the VT murders was Emily Jane Hilscher, a 19 year old, who clearly had a good deal of people who loved her, and who will miss her for the rest of their lives.

Emily was identified as one of the first victims of the shooting, which lead to a great deal of speculation on the behalf of the MSM and bloggers.

In reading about the tragic events, I've come across a lot of comments from friends of Emily's that clearly state she was not in a relationship with monster who did this. Sadly, it seems that the first glimpse of the situation made it appear to be a domestic violence act, and therefore a huge amount of people have grabbed that portion of the story and linked Emily as having dated Cho. I read a great piece today that stated that her actual boyfriend was first spoken to about the first shooting,(because police were investigating that angle,) which should have ended any rumors that Cho and her were romantically involved.

Even with this new information, and an outpouring of information from her friends that Emily and Cho were not together, many people still want to try to play that hand.

Since I was never blessed with the chance to meet her, I'd like you to look at this site http://southernsassoncrime.com/?p=704 (copy and paste url into browser)
I'm mainly interested in this post because I have personal knowledge that the people responsible for that post have already been contacted and informed that the information there is wrong- but in showing extreme lack of respect, they have decided to ignore it and keep the post "as is". For those that knew Emily, there is a chance to counter their post with information that is correct, and bring back some human decency when it comes to reporting information to the public. I personally believe that while the public desires to know about the tragic situation there at VT, it is also important to make sure that we are printing the truth, rather than tarnishing the memories of those lost by allowing lies to be posted as facts.

Let's face it, if you aren't willing to even try to get it right, then you have no business talking about it to begin with.

AMW, Talking about VT

America's Most Wanted is looking to open discussion on the events that unfolded at Virginia Tech, and would like your thoughts and suggestions on what could have been done to stop it, and what we can do to prevent it from happening again.

If you would like to join in on the topic, visit the AMW forums, and look for the threads marked Virginia Tech Shootings

Idiots

I swear, I am often ashamed of some people who live in my town.

Student arrested after caller says he brought gun to school

Bomb threat closes Lima campuses

And, of course the best one doesn't have link yet. I'll post it as soon as one is available. Until then, from memory here's the deal:

Someone called an elementary school in Lima (Unity) and threatened to bomb the school because their daughter was suspended. Four girls were under suspension at the time, none had bombs in their homes when police checked.

First, if your child is getting suspended- it pretty much leads people to think your parenting skills might need some work. However, if you threaten to BOMB the school- it PROVES that your parenting skills need work, and tends to convince people that YOU ought to serve a little time in grown up detention (AKA Jail).

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

VIrginia Tech Victims

As families are notified, the names of those lost in the Virginia Tech shootings are being released. So far, the following have been confirmed, any linked names go to sites that have "remembered" them with more links to follow later:

Ross Alameddine
, 20, of Saugus, Mass.
Christopher James "Jamie" Bishop, 35
Ryan Clark, 22, of Columbia County, Ga.
Daniel Perez Cueva, 21, of Peru
Professor Kevin Granata
Caitlin Hammaren, 19, of Westtown, N.Y.
Emily Hilscher, 19 of Woodville, Va.
Jarrett Lane of Narrows, Va.
Matt La Porte of Dumont, N.J.
Henry Lee of Roanoke, Va. (aka Hehn Ly)
Prof. Liviu Librescu, 76
Prof. G.V. Loganathan, 51
Juan Ortiz, 26, of Bayamon, Puerto Rico
Erin Peterson of Centreville, Virginia
Mary Karen Read, 19, of Annandale, Va
Reema Samaha of Centreville, Va.
Leslie Sherman
Maxine Turner of Vienna, Va.
Daniel O'Neil, 22
Jeremy Herbstritt, 27
Ross Abdallah Alameddine
Brian Bluhm
Austin Cloyd, 18,
Jocelyne Couture-Nowak
Mathew Gregory Gwaltney, 24
Rachael Elizabeth Hill 18
Partahi Lumbantoruan
Minal Panchal
Lauren McCain, 20
Erin Peterson,
Michael Pohle, 23
Julia Pryde, 23,
Waleed Mohammed Shaalan, 32,
Nicole White, 20,




Sources:
WDBJ7
My Life of Crime
Crimeblog.us
News 14
SF Gate
WRIC
CBS

Trench

Back before anyone really knew what a "crime blog" was, there was Trench. He's the original crime blogger, and the "go to" guy when it comes to school related crimes.

Last night he was on the radio
speaking about the killings at Virginia Tech by Cho Seung-Hui, and he'll be on again tonight.

Trench also has a few posts up on the case, clicking here will give you complete coverage by him.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Virginia Tech

It's being called the "worst mass shooting in US history", with the latest reports indicating that 32 people have been killed by an unnamed suspect at Virginia.

Two of the victims have been named as Emily Hilscher, (news source-) and Ryan Clark. (news source)

Friends have set up a memorial page on Facebook for Emily, and a friend of Ryan's has posted on him.

SOURCE, With more victim information) Ryan C. Clark, 22, a senior from Augusta, Georgia. A resident adviser at the West Ambler Johnston Hall Dormitory, he was killed in the dormitory as he rushed over to investigate what was going on when he came upon the gunman, according to a student who lives on the fourth floor, where the first shootings took place.


This tragic senseless crime has been documented by Virginia Tech students and can be read at the Washington post.

And, you can even see evidence of it on YouTube.

Of course, given the nature of the situation, all your favorite crime bloggers have been hitting the web, looking for information and sharing with each other. For some of the best over all coverage, please see Steve Huff's first post over at CrimeBlog.us and his follow up post on the victims- “MASSACRE AT VIRGINIA TECH: THE VICTIMS.”

Suspect named Cho Seung-Hui

Just for the sheer fun of it...



I know, some of you aren't going to get the joke on the Cynthia Sommer tee shirt. And I'm sorry for that. Cause I'm laughing my rear off about it.

Let's face it, it's sad that a woman would turn to murdering her husband, but it's even sadder that other people would offer her a "fan club" declaring her innocent.

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Duke

I've been not posting on this story for a simple reason. I didn't know how too.

Members of a team were accused of committing a heinous crime. And I blogged about it. Now, in fairness to me, I blogged about it before it really became mainstream news. Before DNA tests proved there was something odd in this case. Before a DA stepped over the line.

Back when I picked it up, I was asking why there was so little information, and if it would still be so hush hush if the roles were reversed. I wondered just why the MSM was ignoring it.

Now, months later- the truth that has been known for some time has been publicly declared. It took media frenzy, an overzealous DA and public forums to turn this case into the headliner it was... but all that accomplished was three boys having their lives and their dignity tarnished.

I wonder what would have become of this case if the national media had continued to ignore it. Would Duke lacrosse have been dragged over the coals by District Attorney Mike Nifong just as badly? Would less media attention to the case have made any difference in the outcome?

As odd as it may seem, I personally think that Nifong's consistently questionable behavior was excelled by the media attention. And while it may have made the embarrassment and pain of suffering through this worse for the players, I believe that it helped draw strong questions about the case. His behavior eventually was just as suspect as the accusers was, and helped in creating doubt to the players actual guilt.

I feel for the young men whose lives were torn apart, and for their families. And I hope that their public suffering can be used as a lesson to those who would make false accusations against others.

Really, there are too many victims as it is in the world, we don't need any more people lying about it.

Friday, April 13, 2007

What do you mean TOP 100??

If you ask me, she's more "Top Mommy Blogger", not just one of the top 100.

But, I'm a little biased that way.

Congrats Home Sweet Home!

Well, You're Damn Right That Was Scary- At least for them

Somewhere out there, there is a child that needs to be commended.

She was at the airport recently, with her family, saying goodbye to her grandparents. As she was enjoying the last few minutes of time with them, her peaceful carefree moment was lost with the sad realisation that some deviant pervert was staring her down. And, she did what all children should be taught to do when an adult is making them uncomfortable- she spoke up and informed her mother. And it's a good thing she did. As it may have just been the very thing that saved her.

The following link goes directly to Girlchat, a message board used by pedophiles as a source of degrading and exploiting the innocence of our children. The message was wrote by Jensman on Friday, April 13 2007, and in it he describes how he stared at a young girl, listening in on the conversation the family was having- hoping to, in his words "dying to find out how old she was, where she was going, where she lived, everything I could find out about her".

LINK TO PERV MESSAGE- Oh, my, how do I describe the other girl? This is beyond me, but I'll try.

In the face, she's eight or nine. But she has a Liza Minelli style haircut [though a different color] which looks completely out of place on her almost babyish face, which is very very pale and round, with hints of baby fat under the ears, though otherwise she's extremely slender, even skinny. [My type, in other words.]

She's exactly the same height as her sister, which is mind-boggling to me, given the apparent age of her face. She has the slenderest long neck I've ever seen, gazelle-like. She's wearing hip-hugger tight pants and a short shirt which leaves her midriff completely bare all the way around, but especially in front, where the shirt material is pulled up into a sort of inverted V. [My goodness, aren't navels WONDERFUL?]


As if the fact that he is turning a child 8 or 9 years old into some sort of sexual object in his mind wasn't bad enough:

Suddenly, I am alarmed to hear the younger girl say, to her mom. "There's a guy over there in an orange shirt who keeps staring at me." As I have an orange shirt on, there's no doubt in my mind who she means. Quickly I shift my posture slightly and aim my focus elsewhere, so that the mother will perceive me staring somewhere 'else,' ANYWHERE else! Which is what happens.

The mother's reply is voiced too low for me to hear, but it evidently pacifies the child, and the girl never looks my way again. Nor does the mom, so far as I can tell.

I'm meanwhile frantically playing over various possible explanations if this all leads to a confrontation. "I was just trying to figure out how old she is," sounds pretty lame. "I was staring because she's the most beautiful girl I've ever seen in my life," probably doesn't help any. There's no way I'm going to deny having stared. I owe the girl that much honesty, if push comes to shove. Besides which, I can't be the only man who has ever stared at her. She's outrageously gorgeous.

The three of them, mother and two girls, finally board the plane and wave goodbye just before they disappear inside. I feel like waving back, but don't, having been caught staring.

Ordinarily, in a situation like this, I would now approach the grandparents, strike up a conversation about the airport, or the weather, or something, and eventually get around to commenting about the two grandchildren, and try to find out surreptitiously where they live. Not that I will do anything with that information if I get it, other than to store it away for possible future reference. I would probably also try to find out the two girls' ages.

Ordinarily? In a situation like this? So now we know that this sick freak makes a habit of stalking out young girls, and then attempting to find out where they live- for possible future reference??

Thankfully, the young girl alerting her mother to this most like prevented this man from finding out "everything about her" as he'd wished he could have. And, while we should all be thankful of that- we should all also take note of the "advice" he then gives his other pedophile freak friends on how to avoid situations like this one:

1. If you must stare, do it more covertly in future.

2. Be thankful for small blessings. Rather than bemoaning the fact that you'll never see this girl again, be thankful you got to see her this once.

3. Be thankful for moms who are not paranoid. This mom could easily have gotten out of line and come over and confronted me. The airport security was very lax, and no one would have tried to stop her getting out of line after she had already passed through the screening.

4. Be glad you had the instinct to move thirty feet away.

5. Be more aware that girls these days are instructed to be aware of men like me and report events to their moms.


Parents, be paranoid. Because walking over to this man would not have been out of line- not for the simple fact that he was stalking your child, hoping to find out where she lived for, like he said, "possible future reference". One moment of standing up and defending your child from the sick likes of this man is well worth it- and it beats having this perv actually finding out where your children are.

I tell you constantly, we can never be too safe, we can never protect our children from these deviant sexual predators too much. There should be nothing that we wouldn't do if it meant keeping our children safe.

House Bill 111

Green is my favorite color, and so I thought it was more than fitting when the word of Ohio's green license plates made the news. I'm not going to lie or sugar coat it- I want to know if creepy guy in the next car is a sexual deviant, or if he's just creepy. Of course, despite the hype- green license plates will only be able to show us those people already convicted of a sex crime. And, even in that group of people- it won't show us all of them, just the ones who fall within the scope of that law.

You see, there is no perfect way of handing these perverts a scarlet letter to wear- because some laws are retroactive, and because too many have either plead down the charges- or never been charged to begin with.

Don't get me wrong- I support the efforts of these types of new laws, I just also happen to see that they give a false sense of security to people. And, that is just as dangerous as the predators themselves.

The reason I bring all of this up is that Ohio is looking at yet another new law- House Bill 111. This bill is really focused on determining the limits of what a "neglected child" is. Go ahead click the link and scroll down to number 8.

Now, this is a little long- but read it anyway because even if you don't care about House Bill 111- you ought to know your laws on sexual offenders in Ohio- and House Bill 111 uses the following law to determine "neglect".

§ 2950.01. Definitions.

As used in this chapter, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:

(A) "Confinement" includes, but is not limited to, a community residential sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16 or 2929.26 of the Revised Code.

(B) "Habitual sex offender" means, except when a juvenile judge removes this classification pursuant to division (A)(2) of section 2152.84 or division (C)(2) of section 2152.85 of the Revised Code, a person to whom both of the following apply:

(1) The person is convicted of or pleads guilty to a sexually oriented offense that is not a registration-exempt sexually oriented offense, or the person is adjudicated a delinquent child for committing on or after January 1, 2002, a sexually oriented offense that is not a registration-exempt sexually oriented offense, was fourteen years of age or older at the time of committing the offense, and is classified a juvenile sex offender registrant based on that adjudication.

(2) One of the following applies to the person:

(a) Regarding a person who is an offender, the person previously was convicted of or pleaded guilty to one or more sexually oriented offenses or child-victim oriented offenses or previously was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing one or more sexually oriented offenses or child-victim oriented offenses and was classified a juvenile offender registrant or out-of-state juvenile offender registrant based on one or more of those adjudications, regardless of when the offense was committed and regardless of the person's age at the time of committing the offense.

(b) Regarding a delinquent child, the person previously was convicted of, pleaded guilty to, or was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing one or more sexually oriented offenses or child-victim oriented offenses, regardless of when the offense was committed and regardless of the person's age at the time of committing the offense.

(C) "Prosecutor" has the same meaning as in section 2935.01 of the Revised Code.

(D) "Sexually oriented offense" means any of the following:

(1) Any of the following violations or offenses committed by a person eighteen years of age or older:

(a) Regardless of the age of the victim of the offense, a violation of section 2907.02, 2907.03, 2907.05, or 2907.07 of the Revised Code;

(b) Any of the following offenses involving a minor, in the circumstances specified:

(i) A violation of division (A)(4) of section 2905.01 or section 2907.04, 2907.06, or 2907.08 of the Revised Code, when the victim of the offense is under eighteen years of age;

(ii) A violation of section 2907.21 of the Revised Code when the person who is compelled, induced, procured, encouraged, solicited, requested, or facilitated to engage in, paid or agreed to be paid for, or allowed to engage in the sexual activity in question is under eighteen years of age;

(iii) A violation of division (A)(1) or (3) of section 2907.321 [2907.32.1] or 2907.322 [2907.32.2] of the Revised Code;

(iv) A violation of division (A)(1) or (2) of section 2907.323 [2907.32.3] of the Revised Code;

(v) A violation of division (B)(5) of section 2919.22 of the Revised Code when the child who is involved in the offense is under eighteen years of age;

(vi) A violation of division (A)(1), (2), (3), or (5) of section 2905.01, of section 2903.211 [2903.21.1], 2905.02, 2905.03, or 2905.05, or of former section 2905.04 of the Revised Code, when the victim of the offense is under eighteen years of age and the offense is committed with a sexual motivation.

(c) Regardless of the age of the victim of the offense, a violation of section 2903.01, 2903.02, 2903.11, or 2905.01 of the Revised Code, or of division (A) of section 2903.04 of the Revised Code, that is committed with a sexual motivation;

(d) A violent sex offense, or a designated homicide, assault, or kidnapping offense if the offender also was convicted of or pleaded guilty to a sexual motivation specification that was included in the indictment, count in the indictment, or information charging the designated homicide, assault, or kidnapping offense;

(e) A violation of section 2907.06 or 2907.08 of the Revised Code when the victim of the offense is eighteen years of age or older, or a violation of section 2903.211 [2903.21.1] of the Revised Code when the victim of the offense is eighteen years of age or older and the offense is committed with a sexual motivation;

(f) A violation of any former law of this state, any existing or former municipal ordinance or law of another state or the United States, any existing or former law applicable in a military court or in an Indian tribal court, or any existing or former law of any nation other than the United States, that is or was substantially equivalent to any offense listed in division (D)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section;

(g) An attempt to commit, conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing any offense listed in division (D)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) of this section.

(2) An act committed by a person under eighteen years of age that is any of the following:

(a) Subject to division (D)(2)(i) of this section, regardless of the age of the victim of the violation, a violation of section 2907.02, 2907.03, 2907.05, or 2907.07 of the Revised Code;

(b) Subject to division (D)(2)(i) of this section, any of the following acts involving a minor in the circumstances specified:

(i) A violation of division (A)(4) of section 2905.01 or section 2907.06 or 2907.08 of the Revised Code, when the victim of the violation is under eighteen years of age;

(ii) A violation of section 2907.21 of the Revised Code when the person who is compelled, induced, procured, encouraged, solicited, requested, or facilitated to engage in, paid or agreed to be paid for, or allowed to engage in the sexual activity in question is under eighteen years of age;

(iii) A violation of division (B)(5) of section 2919.22 of the Revised Code when the child who is involved in the violation is under eighteen years of age;

(iv) A violation of division (A)(1), (2), (3), or (5) of section 2905.01, section 2903.211 [2903.21.1], or former section 2905.04 of the Revised Code, when the victim of the violation is under eighteen years of age and the offense is committed with a sexual motivation.

(c) Subject to division (D)(2)(i) of this section, any of the following:

(i) Any violent sex offense that, if committed by an adult, would be a felony of the first, second, third, or fourth degree;

(ii) Any designated homicide, assault, or kidnapping offense if that offense, if committed by an adult, would be a felony of the first, second, third, or fourth degree and if the court determined that, if the child was an adult, the child would be guilty of a sexual motivation specification regarding that offense.

(d) Subject to division (D)(2)(i) of this section, a violation of section 2903.01, 2903.02, 2903.11, 2905.01, or 2905.02 of the Revised Code, a violation of division (A) of section 2903.04 of the Revised Code, or an attempt to violate any of those sections or that division that is committed with a sexual motivation;

(e) Subject to division (D)(2)(i) of this section, a violation of division (A)(1) or (3) of section 2907.321 [2907.32.1], division (A)(1) or (3) of section 2907.322 [2907.32.2], or division (A)(1) or (2) of section 2907.323 [2907.32.3] of the Revised Code, or an attempt to violate any of those divisions, if the person who violates or attempts to violate the division is four or more years older than the minor who is the victim of the violation;

(f) Subject to division (D)(2)(i) of this section, a violation of section 2907.06 or 2907.08 of the Revised Code when the victim of the violation is eighteen years of age or older, or a violation of section 2903.211 [2903.21.1] of the Revised Code when the victim of the violation is eighteen years of age or older and the offense is committed with a sexual motivation;

(g) Subject to division (D)(2)(i) of this section, any violation of any former law of this state, any existing or former municipal ordinance or law of another state or the United States, any existing or former law applicable in a military court or in an Indian tribal court, or any existing or former law of any nation other than the United States, that is or was substantially equivalent to any offense listed in division (D)(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) of this section and that, if committed by an adult, would be a felony of the first, second, third, or fourth degree;

(h) Subject to division (D)(2)(i) of this section, any attempt to commit, conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing any offense listed in division (D)(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), or (g) of this section;

(i) If the child's case has been transferred for criminal prosecution under section 2152.12 of the Revised Code, the act is any violation listed in division (D)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), or (g) of this section or would be any offense listed in any of those divisions if committed by an adult.

(E) "Sexual predator" means a person to whom either of the following applies:

(1) The person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to committing a sexually oriented offense that is not a registration-exempt sexually oriented offense and is likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually oriented offenses.

(2) The person has been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing a sexually oriented offense that is not a registration-exempt sexually oriented offense, was fourteen years of age or older at the time of committing the offense, was classified a juvenile offender registrant based on that adjudication, and is likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually oriented offenses.

(F) "Supervised release" means a release of an offender from a prison term, a term of imprisonment, or another type of confinement that satisfies either of the following conditions:

(1) The release is on parole, a conditional pardon, under a community control sanction, under transitional control, or under a post-release control sanction, and it requires the person to report to or be supervised by a parole officer, probation officer, field officer, or another type of supervising officer.

(2) The release is any type of release that is not described in division (F)(1) of this section and that requires the person to report to or be supervised by a probation officer, a parole officer, a field officer, or another type of supervising officer.

(G) An offender or delinquent child is "adjudicated as being a sexual predator" or "adjudicated a sexual predator" if any of the following applies and if, regarding a delinquent child, that status has not been removed pursuant to section 2152.84, 2152.85, or 2950.09 of the Revised Code:

(1) The offender is convicted of or pleads guilty to committing, on or after January 1, 1997, a sexually oriented offense that is not a registration-exempt sexually oriented offense, the sexually oriented offense is a violent sex offense or a designated homicide, assault, or kidnapping offense, and the offender is adjudicated a sexually violent predator in relation to that offense.

(2) Regardless of when the sexually oriented offense was committed, on or after January 1, 1997, the offender is sentenced for a sexually oriented offense that is not a registration-exempt sexually oriented offense, and the sentencing judge determines pursuant to division (B) of section 2950.09 of the Revised Code that the offender is a sexual predator.

(3) The delinquent child is adjudicated a delinquent child for committing a sexually oriented offense that is not a registration-exempt sexually oriented offense, was fourteen years of age or older at the time of committing the offense, and has been classified a juvenile offender registrant based on that adjudication, and the adjudicating judge or that judge's successor in office determines pursuant to division (B) of section 2950.09 or pursuant to section 2152.82, 2152.83, 2152.84, or 2152.85 of the Revised Code that the delinquent child is a sexual predator.

(4) Prior to January 1, 1997, the offender was convicted of or pleaded guilty to, and was sentenced for, a sexually oriented offense that is not a registration-exempt sexually oriented offense, the offender is imprisoned in a state correctional institution on or after January 1, 1997, and the court determines pursuant to division (C) of section 2950.09 of the Revised Code that the offender is a sexual predator.

(5) Regardless of when the sexually oriented offense was committed, the offender or delinquent child is convicted of or pleads guilty to, has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to, or is adjudicated a delinquent child for committing a sexually oriented offense that is not a registration-exempt sexually oriented offense in another state, in a federal court, military court, or Indian tribal court, or in a court in any nation other than the United States, as a result of that conviction, plea of guilty, or adjudication, the offender or delinquent child is required, under the law of the jurisdiction in which the offender was convicted or pleaded guilty or the delinquent child was adjudicated, to register as a sex offender until the offender's or delinquent child's death, and, on or after July 1, 1997, for offenders or January 1, 2002, for delinquent children, the offender or delinquent child moves to and resides in this state or temporarily is domiciled in this state for more than five days or the offender is required under section 2950.04 of the Revised Code to register a school, institution of higher education, or place of employment address in this state, unless a court of common pleas or juvenile court determines that the offender or delinquent child is not a sexual predator pursuant to division (F) of section 2950.09 of the Revised Code.

(H) "Sexually violent predator specification," "sexually violent offense," "sexual motivation specification," "/Ddesignated homicide, assault, or kidnapping offense," and "violent sex offense" have the same meanings as in section 2971.01 of the Revised Code.

(I) "Post-release control sanction" and "transitional control" have the same meanings as in section 2967.01 of the Revised Code.

(J) "Juvenile offender registrant" means a person who is adjudicated a delinquent child for committing on or after January 1, 2002, a sexually oriented offense that is not a registration-exempt sexually oriented offense or a child-victim oriented offense, who is fourteen years of age or older at the time of committing the offense, and who a juvenile court judge, pursuant to an order issued under section 2152.82, 2152.83, 2152.84, or 2152.85 of the Revised Code, classifies a juvenile offender registrant and specifies has a duty to comply with sections 2950.04, 2950.05, and 2950.06 of the Revised Code if the child committed a sexually oriented offense or with sections 2950.041 [2950.04.1], 2950.05, and 2950.06 of the Revised Code if the child committed a child-victim oriented offense. "Juvenile offender registrant" includes a person who, prior to July 31, 2003, was a "juvenile sex offender registrant" under the former definition of that former term.

(K) "Secure facility" means any facility that is designed and operated to ensure that all of its entrances and exits are locked and under the exclusive control of its staff and to ensure that, because of that exclusive control, no person who is institutionalized or confined in the facility may leave the facility without permission or supervision.

(L) "Out-of-state juvenile offender registrant" means a person who is adjudicated a delinquent child in a court in another state, in a federal court, military court, or Indian tribal court, or in a court in any nation other than the United States for committing a sexually oriented offense that is not a registration-exempt sexually oriented offense or a child-victim oriented offense, who on or after January 1, 2002, moves to and resides in this state or temporarily is domiciled in this state for more than five days, and who has a duty under section 2950.04 of the Revised Code to register in this state and the duty to otherwise comply with that section and sections 2950.05 and 2950.06 of the Revised Code if the child committed a sexually oriented offense or has a duty under section 2950.041 [2950.04.1] of the Revised Code to register in this state and the duty to otherwise comply with that section and sections 2950.05 and 2950.06 of the Revised Code if the child committed a child-victim oriented offense. "Out-of-state juvenile offender registrant" includes a person who, prior to July 31, 2003, was an "out-of-state juvenile sex offender registrant" under the former definition of that former term.

(M) "Juvenile court judge" includes a magistrate to whom the juvenile court judge confers duties pursuant to division (A)(15) of section 2151.23 of the Revised Code.

(N) "Adjudicated a delinquent child for committing a sexually oriented offense" includes a child who receives a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence under section 2152.13 of the Revised Code for committing a sexually oriented offense.

(O) "Aggravated sexually oriented offense" means a violation of division (A)(1)(b) of section 2907.02 of the Revised Code committed on or after June 13, 2002, or a violation of division (A)(2) of that section committed on or after July 31, 2003.

(P) (1) "Presumptive registration-exempt sexually oriented offense" means any of the following sexually oriented offenses described in division (P)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section, when the offense is committed by a person who previously has not been convicted of, pleaded guilty to, or adjudicated a delinquent child for committing any sexually oriented offense described in division (P)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section, any other sexually oriented offense, or any child-victim oriented offense and when the victim or intended victim of the offense is eighteen years of age or older:

(a) Any sexually oriented offense listed in division (D)(1)(e) or (D)(2)(f) of this section committed by a person who is eighteen years of age or older or, subject to division (P)(1)(e) of this section, committed by a person who is under eighteen years of age;

(b) Any violation of any former law of this state, any existing or former municipal ordinance or law of another state or the United States, any existing or former law applicable in a military court or in an Indian tribal court, or any existing or former law of any nation other than the United States that is committed by a person who is eighteen years of age or older and that is or was substantially equivalent to any sexually oriented offense listed in division (P)(1)(a) of this section;

(c) Subject to division (P)(1)(e) of this section, any violation of any former law of this state, any existing or former municipal ordinance or law of another state or the United States, any existing or former law applicable in a military court or in an Indian tribal court, or any existing or former law of any nation other than the United States that is committed by a person who is under eighteen years of age, that is or was substantially equivalent to any sexually oriented offense listed in division (P)(1)(a) of this section, and that would be a felony of the fourth degree if committed by an adult;

(d) Any attempt to commit, conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing any offense listed in division (P)(1)(a) or (b) of this section if the person is eighteen years of age or older or, subject to division (P)(1)(e) of this section, listed in division (P)(1)(a) or (c) of this section if the person is under eighteen years of age.

(e) Regarding an act committed by a person under eighteen years of age, if the child's case has been transferred for criminal prosecution under section 2152.12 of the Revised Code, the act is any sexually oriented offense listed in division (P)(1)(a), (b), or (d) of this section.

(2) "Presumptive registration-exempt sexually oriented offense" does not include any sexually oriented offense described in division (P)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section that is committed by a person who previously has been convicted of, pleaded guilty to, or adjudicated a delinquent child for committing any sexually oriented offense described in division (P)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section or any other sexually oriented offense.

(Q) (1) "Registration-exempt sexually oriented offense" means any presumptive registration-exempt sexually oriented offense, if a court does not issue an order under section 2950.021 [2950.02.1] of the Revised Code that removes the presumptive exemption and subjects the offender who was convicted of or pleaded guilty to the offense to registration under section 2950.04 of the Revised Code and all other duties and responsibilities generally imposed under this chapter upon persons who are convicted of or plead guilty to any sexually oriented offense other than a presumptive registration-exempt sexually oriented offense or that removes the presumptive exemption and potentially subjects the child who was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing the offense to classification as a juvenile offender registrant under section 2152.82, 2152.83, 2152.84, or 2152.85 of the Revised Code and to registration under section 2950.04 of the Revised Code and all other duties and responsibilities generally imposed under this chapter upon persons who are adjudicated delinquent children for committing a sexually oriented offense other than a presumptive registration-exempt sexually oriented offense.

(2) "Registration-exempt sexually oriented offense" does not include a presumptive registration-exempt sexually oriented offense if a court issues an order under section 2950.021 [2950.02.1] of the Revised Code that removes the presumptive exemption and subjects the offender or potentially subjects the delinquent child to the duties and responsibilities described in division (Q)(1) of this section.

(R) "School" and "school premises" have the same meanings as in section 2925.01 of the Revised Code.

(S) (1) "Child-victim oriented offense" means any of the following:

(a) Subject to division (S)(2) of this section, any of the following violations or offenses committed by a person eighteen years of age or older, when the victim of the violation is under eighteen years of age and is not a child of the person who commits the violation:

(i) A violation of division (A)(1), (2), (3), or (5) of section 2905.01, of section 2905.02, 2905.03, or 2905.05, or of former section 2905.04 of the Revised Code;

(ii) A violation of any former law of this state, any existing or former municipal ordinance or law of another state or the United States, any existing or former law applicable in a military court or in an Indian tribal court, or any existing or former law of any nation other than the United States, that is or was substantially equivalent to any offense listed in division (S)(1)(a)(i) of this section;

(iii) An attempt to commit, conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing any offense listed in division (S)(1)(a)(i) or (ii) of this section.

(b) Subject to division (S)(2) of this section, an act committed by a person under eighteen years of age that is any of the following, when the victim of the violation is under eighteen years of age and is not a child of the person who commits the violation:

(i) Subject to division (S)(1)(b)(iv) of this section, a violation of division (A)(1), (2), (3), or (5) of section 2905.01 or of former section 2905.04 of the Revised Code;

(ii) Subject to division (S)(1)(b)(iv) of this section, any violation of any former law of this state, any existing or former municipal ordinance or law of another state or the United States, any existing or former law applicable in a military court or in an Indian tribal court, or any existing or former law of any nation other than the United States, that is or was substantially equivalent to any offense listed in division (S)(1)(b)(i) of this section and that, if committed by an adult, would be a felony of the first, second, third, or fourth degree;

(iii) Subject to division (S)(1)(b)(iv) of this section, any attempt to commit, conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing any offense listed in division (S)(1)(b)(i) or (ii) of this section;

(iv) If the child's case has been transferred for criminal prosecution under section 2152.12 of the Revised Code, the act is any violation listed in division (S)(1)(a)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section or would be any offense listed in any of those divisions if committed by an adult.

(2) "Child-victim oriented offense" does not include any offense identified in division (S)(1)(a) or (b) of this section that is a sexually violent offense. An offense identified in division (S)(1)(a) or (b) of this section that is a sexually violent offense is within the definition of a sexually oriented offense.

(T) (1) "Habitual child-victim offender" means, except when a juvenile judge removes this classification pursuant to division (A)(2) of section 2152.84 or division (C)(2) of section 2152.85 of the Revised Code, a person to whom both of the following apply:

(a) The person is convicted of or pleads guilty to a child-victim oriented offense, or the person is adjudicated a delinquent child for committing on or after January 1, 2002, a child-victim oriented offense, was fourteen years of age or older at the time of committing the offense, and is classified a juvenile offender registrant based on that adjudication.

(b) One of the following applies to the person:

(i) Regarding a person who is an offender, the person previously was convicted of or pleaded guilty to one or more child-victim oriented offenses or previously was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing one or more child-victim oriented offenses and was classified a juvenile offender registrant or out-of-state juvenile offender registrant based on one or more of those adjudications, regardless of when the offense was committed and regardless of the person's age at the time of committing the offense.

(ii) Regarding a delinquent child, the person previously was convicted of, pleaded guilty to, or was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing one or more child-victim oriented offenses, regardless of when the offense was committed and regardless of the person's age at the time of committing the offense.

(2) "Habitual child-victim offender" includes a person who has been convicted of, pleaded guilty to, or adjudicated a delinquent child for committing, a child-victim oriented offense and who, on and after July 31, 2003, is automatically classified a habitual child-victim offender pursuant to division (E) of section 2950.091 [2950.09.1] of the Revised Code.

(U) "Child-victim predator" means a person to whom either of the following applies:

(1) The person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to committing a child-victim oriented offense and is likely to engage in the future in one or more child-victim oriented offenses.

(2) The person has been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing a child-victim oriented offense, was fourteen years of age or older at the time of committing the offense, was classified a juvenile offender registrant based on that adjudication, and is likely to engage in the future in one or more child-victim oriented offenses.

(V) An offender or delinquent child is "adjudicated as being a child-victim predator" or "adjudicated a child-victim predator" if any of the following applies and if, regarding a delinquent child, that status has not been removed pursuant to section 2152.84, 2152.85, or 2950.09 of the Revised Code:

(1) The offender or delinquent child has been convicted of, pleaded guilty to, or adjudicated a delinquent child for committing, a child-victim oriented offense and, on and after July 31, 2003, is automatically classified a child-victim predator pursuant to division (A) of section 2950.091 [2950.09.1] of the Revised Code.

(2) Regardless of when the child-victim oriented offense was committed, on or after July 31, 2003, the offender is sentenced for a child-victim oriented offense, and the sentencing judge determines pursuant to division (B) of section 2950.091 [2950.09.1] of the Revised Code that the offender is a child-victim predator.

(3) The delinquent child is adjudicated a delinquent child for committing a child-victim oriented offense, was fourteen years of age or older at the time of committing the offense, and has been classified a juvenile offender registrant based on that adjudication, and the adjudicating judge or that judge's successor in office determines pursuant to division (B) of section 2950.09 or pursuant to section 2152.82, 2152.83, 2152.84, or 2152.85 of the Revised Code that the delinquent child is a child-victim predator.

(4) Prior to July 31, 2003, the offender was convicted of or pleaded guilty to a child-victim oriented offense, at the time of the conviction or guilty plea, the offense was considered a sexually oriented offense, on or after July 31, 2003, the offender is serving a term of imprisonment in a state correctional institution, and the court determines pursuant to division (C) of section 2950.091 [2950.09.1] of the Revised Code that the offender is a child-victim predator.

(5) Regardless of when the child-victim oriented offense was committed, the offender or delinquent child is convicted, pleads guilty, has been convicted, pleaded guilty, or adjudicated a delinquent child in a court in another state, in a federal court, military court, or Indian tribal court, or in a court in any nation other than the United States for committing a child-victim oriented offense, as a result of that conviction, plea of guilty, or adjudication, the offender or delinquent child is required under the law of the jurisdiction in which the offender was convicted or pleaded guilty or the delinquent child was adjudicated, to register as a child-victim offender or sex offender until the offender's or delinquent child's death, and, on or after July 1, 1997, for offenders or January 1, 2002, for delinquent children the offender or delinquent child moves to and resides in this state or temporarily is domiciled in this state for more than five days or the offender is required under section 2950.041 [2950.04.1] of the Revised Code to register a school, institution of higher education, or place of employment address in this state, unless a court of common pleas or juvenile court determines that the offender or delinquent child is not a child-victim predator pursuant to division (F) of section 2950.091 [2950.09.1] of the Revised Code.

(W) "Residential premises" means the building in which a residential unit is located and the grounds upon which that building stands, extending to the perimeter of the property. "Residential premises" includes any type of structure in which a residential unit is located, including, but not limited to, multi-unit buildings and mobile and manufactured homes.

(X) "Residential unit" means a dwelling unit for residential use and occupancy, and includes the structure or part of a structure that is used as a home, residence, or sleeping place by one person who maintains a household or two or more persons who maintain a common household. "Residential unit" does not include a halfway house or a community-based correctional facility.

(Y) "Multi-unit building" means a building in which is located more than twelve residential units that have entry doors that open directly into the unit from a hallway that is shared with one or more other units. A residential unit is not considered located in a multi-unit building if the unit does not have an entry door that opens directly into the unit from a hallway that is shared with one or more other units or if the unit is in a building that is not a multi-unit building as described in this division.

(Z) "Community control sanction" has the same meaning as in section 2929.01 of the Revised Code.

(AA) "Halfway house" and "community-based correctional facility" have the same meanings as in section 2929.01 of the Revised Code.

(BB) "Adjudicated a sexually violent predator" has the same meaning as in section 2929.01 of the Revised Code, and a person is "adjudicated a sexually violent predator" in the same manner and the same circumstances as are described in that section.

HISTORY: 146 v H 180 (Eff 1-1-97); 147 v S 111 (Eff 3-17-98); 147 v H 565 (Eff 3-30-99); 148 v H 502 (Eff 3-15-2001); 149 v S 3 (Eff 1-1-2002); 149 v S 175 (Eff 5-7-2002); 149 v H 485 (Eff 6-13-2002); 149 v H 393. Eff 7-5-2002; 149 v H 490, § 1, eff. 1-1-04; 150 v S 5, § 1, eff. 7-31-03; 150 v S 5, § 3, eff. 1-1-04; 150 v S 57, § 1, eff. 1-1-04; 150 v H 473, § 1, eff. 4-29-05.

Å Opening quotation mark in (H) not in enrolled version of 150 v H 473.

The effective date is set by section 3 of S.B. 5.

Analogous to former RC § 2950.01 (130 v 669; 134 v H 511), repealed 146 v H 180, § 2, eff 1-1-97.

Effect of Amendments

150 v H 473, effective April 29, 2005, rewrote (D)(1)(d), (D)(2)(c), and (G)(1); in (H), inserted "'specification,' designated homicide, assault, or kidnapping offense" and made related changes; in (T)(2) and (V)(4), specified the effective date as "July 31, 2003"; and added (BB).

S.B. 57, Acts 2003, effective January 1, 2004, substituted "July 31, 2003" for "the effective date of this amendment" in (J), (L), (O), and (V)(1), (2) and (4); made a minor stylistic change in (Q)(1); inserted ""Residential unit" does not include a half-way house or community-based correctional facility" in (X); and added (AA).

Section 3, S.B. 5, Acts 2003, effective January 1, 2004, redesignated former (P) as (Z).

H.B. 490, Acts 2002, effective January 1, 2004, inserted "or 2929.26" in (A); substituted "under a community control sanction" for "or probation" in (F)(1); added (P).

Section 1, S.B. 5, Acts 2003, effective July 31, 2003, rewrote the section.


Okay, back to that House Bill, and number 8 on it. This would include a rather large umbrella of offenders, making it a crime for a parent to allow children to live in the same house as the offender. Turning it into a case of neglect. And, I can't really say that I believe more "umbrella" laws are going to really do any good.

Take a sexual predator- the law says anyone convicted after a certain date, of certain crimes is deemed a sexual predator, a quick reference of the different classifications can be found at the Wayne County website, - but does it really deem them a danger to children? Now always, sometimes, many times, but not always.

Take a make believe case of a 18 year old boy. He has two younger brothers that live with him at his parents house. He ends up getting charged with having sex with an underage girl. Now, I'm not saying that he should get away with it- but young people make bad choices, and so he is charged. The court case proves that he was unaware of the girls age, and he clearly has the sympathy of the judge due to profound evidence in his favor during the case- including the girl admitting that she lied. The judge sentences him, he gets off rather lightly BUT he still has to register as a sexual offender. And then he is told he can't move back home- because House Bill 111 prevents his parents from allowing that.
Is he a danger to his little brothers? Most likely not.

Now, compare that to a mother who knows he ex has sexually abused someone, but since he's was convicted prior to a certain date, he isn't included in the new law. He ends up abusing her young children... because we all know he will.

How does House Bill 111 allow her to sidestep this, and get away with endangering her children, while at the same time "protecting" the brothers of someone who most likely will never abuse them?

I'm sorry people, but license plates and Sex Offender Registries, and child neglect laws that have exceptions to who can be on them according to the last conviction, and now House Bills that will include those same restrictions- it leaves a large population of offenders who despite being dangerous, we'll never hear about.

The average child molester, according to a whole bunch of studies, has upward of 107 victims before their first conviction. That first conviction usually teaches them one thing they are already pretty good at- how to not get caught. So, just how many do you think become better at scaring victims into silence? How many get out of jail, and go on to abuse more children- but just don't get caught again?

Are you really willing to stake your children's well being on the *hope* that the guy your dating is not on the SOR because he's never abused a child, rather than he's just never been caught, never plead out, or just hasn't been caught recently?

All the laws, all the precautions- they are nothing but a false sense of hope to those who are attempting to protect their children.

You want a real answer to child molesting sex offenders re offending? Stop letting them out of jail.

I'm not saying I'm against these laws- you know I favor them over having no protections at all. I just think that if our elected leaders really wanted to offer protection- they'd start with laws that keep these predators on the other side of the prison walls.

AMW this week

Saturday's most important "you have to watch this" show, America's Most Wanted will be aired at 9pm on your local Fox Station.

Vincent Ledoux of Cherokee County, Oklahoma was charged with sexually abusing a child, but before he could be tried, he took off. Police have issued a warrant for his arrest and now they along with America's Most Wanted are hoping that you can help bring him him to face justice.

CF-95-00168 06/26/1995 Defendant (OSW*) - LEDOUX, VINCENT A. STATE OF OKLAHOMA vs. LEDOUX, VINCENT A. RAPE, FIRST DEGREE Cherokee

CF-96-00096 04/01/1996 Defendant (OSW*) - LEDOUX, VINCENT A. STATE OF OKLAHOMA vs. LEDOUX, VINCENT A. FORCIBLE SODOMY

Some more of the cases AMW will be airing this weekend:

Goose Creek, South Carolina…Daniel William Hiers…This former cop, an accused murderer and child molester, has been on the run for more than two years. He is on the U.S. Marshals 15 Most Wanted List and is one of AMW’s Dirty Dozen.


Oklahoma City, Oklahoma…Kenneth Marshall Cofer…AMW tipsters have provided several clues that investigators have followed up on, but so far nothing concrete has panned out. Authorities are still hopeful that they will be able to track down this alleged killer, and bring some peace to the family of Larry Buchanan.


Metaire, Louisiana…Edmundo Cerda-Anima…The manhunt for this accused killer has gone international. Police now believe the former Hurricane Katrina contractor may be going back and forth between the United States and Mexico, and if he’s caught he’ll have to answer for a lot more than just illegal border crossings.


Atlanta, Georgia…Michael Anthony Powell…The FBI tells us this is one guy you don’t want to play games with. When you gamble with Powell, apparently you gamble with your life. He is wanted in Atlanta for shooting a man who accused him of cheating in a game of dice.


San Lorenzo, California…Jose “Baby” Hernandez…Cops say Jose Hernandez opened fire at a party in San Lorenzo, California, killing two men. Hernandez claims to be a member of the “Border Brothers” street gang, and may be hiding in Oakland, California.


Phoenix, Arizona…William “Bubba” Ray Plemons…Police say William Plemons has a reputation as a real romantic, at least until you get to know him better. Plemons carried on a series of relationships from behind bars, but according to authorities, he was more interested in money than love. When one woman threatened to unravel his alleged scheme, police say Plemons turned from Casanova into killer.


St. Francis, Wisconsin…KEITH GORES MISSING…When 56-year-old Keith Gores woke up on Thursday, March 22, he told his wife he thought it was Saturday. After he got dressed and left for work, Gores disappeared. Now, his wife wonders if Gores was confused and suffering from amnesia after a nasty fall on the ice outside their home earlier this year.


Dorchester, Massachusetts…Ernest E. Ferguson…In 1992 Earnest Ferguson became a victim when he was shot in the face. He survived, fully recovered, and 13 years later cops say he was ready to get even. However, police say Ferguson’s quest for revenge was not fulfilled because he allegedly killed an innocent man.


Westminster, Maryland…AMW ALL-STAR WEEK 7 WINNER – Eric Workman…Trooper First Class Eric Workman is the kind of police officer who is virtually unstoppable. In the early morning hours of December 12, 2006, a team of Maryland State Troopers served a search warrant for a suspect. The suspect opened fire from above, hitting Workman. Despite the wound, he returned fire fatally wounding the suspect. After spending two days on life support, a week in the hospital, and just three months in physical therapy Trooper Workman returned to duty.



For more information on any of these cases, please click the links or tune in on Saturday night for this week's episode.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Just what kind of blog is this?

I don't often reply to comments I get, and it's been a rare thing when I use one for an excuse to write a post- but I just couldn't help myself on this one.

[link to comment]
exactly what is the purpose of this blog? depression? it only rports on mostly crimes against children..... is this where sickos can come and revel in stories associated with there facsination? do u think u are amking a difference by collecting these stories and in a sense "not looking ON" as u had qouted einstien?

by in no way am i trying to be a smart ass its just tha6t scrolling through stories i am trying to understand your motives. please enlighten me.
me | 04.12.07 - 12:47 am | #

After almost two years... I have to say this is the first time anyone has asked me this, and certainly the first time anyone has suggested that sickos enjoy my place. I'd personally think the fact that I support harsher sentencing, stronger laws, and community activism against these freaks would be something that turned them away.

As for my motives... well if you haven't come to understand my motives by now- then I doubt you'd understand even if I explained it to you.

Street Kids

Seems that infamous "sleeping mom" Nancy Dyer, whose toddler son was found wondering a highway as she napped a few months, has competition for "Mother who lets their kids play in the road" award.

NBC2- A Port Charlotte mother of three was arrested for child neglect after her young son was found walking the streets unattended. When deputies finally tracked down his mother authorities say she was high on prescription drugs.

A woman who lives on Hinton Street in Port Charlotte called the Charlotte County Sheriff's Office Tuesday morning after a four-year-old boy knocked on her door and said he was lost.

When deputies arrived the boy was upset and crying, but he was able to tell them his mother's name, 29-year-old Erica Elese Hernandez.

I suppose there is nothing like being high on drugs while your children play Frogger on the streets.

Oddly enough, it doesn't end there. Yet another child (this time in PA) has taken to playing on a highway- although it appears that no charges are being sought in this case, it appears to be more of a "everyone was asleep at 3 in the morning, and a little tot too smart for his own good wondered outta the house" case than a "mother is a drug addict who can't clean up long enough to prevent her kids from getting into dangerous situations".

Philly.com A 3-year-old boy wandered outside at 3 a.m. yesterday and onto a Lancaster County highway - where a motorist found him, put him in his car, and flagged down a police officer.

Carnival Time

This week's Carnival of the True Crime Blogs is up and ready for reading at Crime Scene Blog- so be sure to click over and see what the best crime bloggers have been working on.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Cash

One of my favorite musicians has always been Johnny Cash. There's just something about an old country boy who can sing.

And, while this isn't really a crime, it's my blog so I'm going to post it anyway.

Source- Firefighters were battling flames Tuesday afternoon in a major fire at the home of the late country singer Johnny Cash.

Dispatchers said all but one of the city's engines had responded to the fire in the suburb northeast of Nashville.

No injuries were reported.

Hendersonville Fire Department officials said construction crews were working there when the fire started. The cause is unknown.




And, just because I really love his songs, here's another one for you.

Interesting read

Fugitive in rape case dead in murder-suicide

Mystery - John Branden, wanted in Oregon since 1999, killed himself and his companion in Washington

Monday, April 09, 2007

Kent A. McDonald,

Kent A. McDonald, was convicted of child molestation in 2002 and sentenced. He wasn't expected to get out anytime soon, having a release date of sometime in 2030.

However, McDonald will not be serving out the rest of his time at any of the fine Indiana Department of Correction facilities.

Cause he is dead.

State Police are investigating the death of a convicted child molester whose body was found in his cell at the Pendleton Correctional Facility.

Prison spokesman Neil Potter said Kent A. McDonald, 44, of North Vernon was found dead in his cell Friday by staff at the prison about 20 miles northeast of Indianapolis.

Detective Bob May, the state police’s lead investigator on the case, declined comment late Friday, saying he had yet to interview inmates concerning McDonald’s death.

“All I can say is that we’re conducting a death investigation,” he said. Journal Gazette


I'm not suggesting that there is any sort of "prison justice" going on over in Indiana, but I can't help but be reminded of a little tattoo story involving yet another one of their sexual predators.

Add to it that the death of McDonald was ruled a homicide today, and that no one is really talking other than to say that he was found dead in his bunk, and that they are "investigating" it... and well- people might start to wonder.

UPDATE:
Blunt force trauma to head and chest seems to be cause of death, although the why and how haven't yet been answered. Investigators are looking closely at his cellmate.

A state police investigator said McDonald may have been slain because of his child molestation record.


UPDATE 2:

Now the story gets a tad more interesting:

“They’re members of the Aryan Brotherhood or Aryan Nation and white supremacists,” May said. “They have a pact to kill child molesters.”

UPDATE 2:

State police have obtained a warrant for possible DNA evidence from McDonald's cellmate, 24-year-old Clay Howard, and another inmate, 21-year-old Paul Rayle.

Indiana State Police Detective Bob May said Howard and Rayle are members of a white supremacist gang that has vowed to kill child molesters.

How to Make 5 Grand

A reward of up to $5,000 is out for a Houston man who sexually assaulted 7-year-old girl and now has failed to register his address as a sex offender and disappeared.

John Junior Longoria, 35, was last reported living in the 1200 block Rock Canyon, Houston. He is required to register his address each year but officials who checked the Rock Canyon address in February found that he had moved. Longoria left no forwarding address, according to a statement from Crime Stoppers.


Personally, I'd turn him in regardless of the reward, but I know some people need that extra little perk in order to get motivated... so I won't complain.

Here's the Texas SOR page on this creep
Here's the news on him.
Here's the pic of the perv:

If you know where this predator is, call Crime Stoppers at 713-222-TIPS

Sunday, April 08, 2007

Victoria's Murder

Tucked away from the lights of the big cities, on the out skirts of a village that still prides itself on the hometown feel of it's American Legion being doors down from the popular local pizza parlor on Main Street; something happened.

Although the little town has grown in popularity over the years due to the crowds that gather annually for it's famous Country Concert in the Hills- it wasn't the name of one of the many country music stars that filled the headlines of newspapers throughout the state:

Source- Fort Loramie, OH, violent crime, on a scale from 1 (low crime) to 10, is 1. Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The US average is 3.

Fort Loramie, OH, property crime, on a scale from 1 (low) to 10, is 1. Property crime includes the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The object of the theft-type offenses is the taking of money or property, but there is no force or threat of force against the victims. The US average is 3.
No, this time Fort Loramie, the little village in Shelby County perfectly located in the beauty of southern Ohio and barely populated with under 500 households, would be the center of attention after what most would consider the most heinous of crimes in most people's memories.

Victoria M. Eilerman, was 84 or 86 (the age varies depending on the source) and had lived in her home alone since the death of her husband in December of 2004. Friends and neighbors described her as being a "very active" woman, who always waved and smiled whenever she was outside. A kind woman, who loved her family, and loved playing cards. And, like many in the area- she often failed to see the need to lock the doors to her home.

It had always been a rather safe place to live, few would ever think that something violent could happen in the area. Until last Thursday.

The house at 7990 State Route 705 showed signs of a disturbance- with a trail of blood leading out of the single story ranch home, but there was no sign of Victoria when police showed up to investigate calls made to 911. The first call had alerted them to a possible intruder in the house.

Depending upon different reports, there were up to three phone calls made concerning the violent crime that had occured- but regardless of the total amount of calls, one thing seems clear- the calls were coming from Victoria's cell phone while she was locked in the trunk her captor's car. LE was able to hear her on the calls, but were unable to respond back. Police say that because her cell phone lacked GPS, they were unable to track her location.

With few details to go on, and no clear place to begin searching for Victoria, police began requesting information on a vehicle described as a older-model black sports-type vehicle such as a Camaro or Trans Am with a white man inside. They believed the car had been in the area of Victoria's home between noon and 2pm on Thursday.

"She did not go willingly," O'Leary said Thursday night. "We do not believe robbery was the motive, but we do not want to confirm or speculate on a motive. The house seemed undisturbed of items of any value. There was no forced entry."

He called it an abduction "for other reasons" because he and his investigators are speculating that someone may have knocked on Eilerman's door and surprised her.

The person, "not knowing what to do with her," abducted her, said O'Leary.


As law enforcement franticly looked for both Victoria, and any signs that might have led them to her safe recovery, her capturer was in a frantic attempt to hide his crimes.

Chris L. Harris, of Sydney Ohio must have been shocked when he came face to face with the older lady standing in the house he was attempting to rob. He probably hadn't prepared for the chance of being spotted, hadn't put thought into what he'd do if someone had walked in on him. No one can say what really ran through his mind as he stood looking at Victoria- but there is little doubt to what he did.

Police say that Harris abducted Victoria, locking her in his trunk, and after taking her to his home, he drove her to a remote location. After his vehicle became stuck in mud, he covered her with branches and walked to the home of a relative for the night. The following day, he returned to the area with a new vehicle, this time moving Victoria to yet another location.

Chris L. Harris, 32, was arrested Friday afternoon at his Sidney home after the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office received anonymous tips that he should be considered a suspect in the disappearance of Victoria M. Eilerman, who had been abducted Thursday from her Fort Loramie Home, according to Sheriff Kevin O’Leary.

Deputies spent much of Thursday and Friday searching for Eilerman, who had been abducted from her home early Thursday afternoon. A second anonymous source lead them to a 1993 Chevy Corsica that was stuck in the mud near a Fort Loramie woods. The car belonged to Harris’ girlfriend, according to the Sheriff’s Office.

Officers eventually discovered blood near the car and concluded that it was the location where Eilerman had been killed. But her body was no longer there.

After his arrest, Harris told police he entered Eilerman’s house to steal at about 12:30 p.m. Thursday and was surprised by the victim. He reportedly abducted her and drove her to his Sidney home, where he raped her, the Sheriff’s office release said. He then took her to Lochard Road woods, near Fort Loramie, where he reportedly killed her by striking her in the back of the head and then covered the body with branches.

While attempting to leave the scene Thursday night, Harris got his car stuck in the mud, He walked to his brother’s home nearby and got a ride home, the release said. O’Leary said the brother did not appear to know about the murder.

Friday morning, Harris reportedly returned to the woods and attempted to hide Eilerman’s body.

“Mr. Harris drove around trying to find a place to leave her body knowing his vehicle was still stuck on Lochard Road.” according to the release.

Harris eventually dropped Eilerman’s body off a long lane winding toward a set of railroad tracks along River Road, where it was retrieved by deputies late Friday night.


Harris broke into Victoria's home, he beat her, abducted her, raped her, killed her, and then attempted to hide her body. After the first attempt proved faulty because of his car being stuck- he went a step farther and dumped her lifeless body off in another place, with no regard to the life he had just stolen.

In exchange for telling officers where he finally left her, Shelby County Prosecutor Ralph Bauer agreed not to seek the death penalty against Harris.

Even at 86 (84 by some reports) Victoria still had life left in her, she had children, grandchildren, friends and neighbors. She loved them, and they her. Her life was stolen from her, just as she was stolen from those who cherished her- by someone not deserving of the mandatory appeals he could have had, had he been facing the death penalty for this horrific crime.

*New* Guilty Plea Expected, Harris' past criminal history revealed.
Man denied bond in woman's kidnap, murder

The Daily Standard
Dayton Daily News
WHIO TV
Dayton Daily [2]
The Lima News