Texas daycare groomed kids for sex parties

[Lurquacious]

any indications that any of the victims are suffering from D.I.D.?

Wouldn’t DID involve cloaking the children’s memories of the events? From reading the reports of the court proceedings, I don’t get the impression that this is the case here. When first taken into foster care, the children showed very disturbed behavior—fear of the dark, soiling themselves, sexual approaches to other children—but they’re well aware of what happened to them: the older girl would tell interviewers that they were made to do “s-e-x” but wouldn’t say the word; the boy told them that “nasty things” were done to him; they drew diagrams of the premises and were able to name the adults, detailing who was on security duty, who was in charge of the money, and so on.

The case is so solid because of the children’s access to detailed memories of what happened, where, and who was involved; it doesn’t seem that any of these memories have been partitioned off in any way.

In fact, the whole sordid story might never have come to light were it not for the children first being taken into foster care and later finding the courage to speak of what they’d been through. And yes, it seems they’re doing well enough now, three years later, to play a part in the prosecution.

Skepticism should not be reflexively equated with denial.

I agree. But Pierre’s reflexive defense of swingers goes far beyond skepticism; he denies the very existence of the victims:

My guess: no actual children were involved.

This despite Jeff’s OP, which gave plenty of detail on the children and their evidence.

[timetunneler]

"A seventh defendant, Rebecca Lynn Pittman, 32, was extradited in May from Wenatchee, Washington, in the case of the rape of the fifteen-year-old (she allegedly held the child down while her husband, defendant Dennis Boyd Pittman, carried out the rape).

On the other hand, Dennis Pittman was captured in Sevierville, Tennessee, and his wife in Washington state, so there may be connections outside Texas."

Wenatchee Washington, Tennessee, the San Francisco bay area and Texas. High Weirdness zones indeed.

So are aliens pimping kids? Because they sure do like to build a lot of crop circles in areas associated with High Weirdness and child abuse:
http://www.ufosnw.com/video_clips.htm

Or maybe it has something to do with the nature of people in those areas... spooks, spook wannabees a generation of people corrupted and perverted by the presence of career criminals and liars unquestioningly doing the bidding of the national security state... Wenatchee is pretty close to the Yakima Firing Center which is or was home to one of the UKUSA's major signal intelligence bases.

In a nutshell, weird shit happens around spies and the national security apparatus of nation states.. be it crop circles, child prostitution, alien abductions, cattle mutilations, etc.

Remember Cathy O'Brien from the book TranceFormation of America? In that book she specifically claims she was abused at Mormon HQ, in Salt Lake City Utah. (see pg. 21). And was a Mormon at one point(see p.15). If you read p.111 of the book you will see she says that a Talent Agency in Tennessee was used to book country music acts for the CIA in key locations to aid in covert operations. I suspect that book is also a mix of truth and fiction, likely written by a spy trying to cover his own ass by blackmailing the people who made him do the shit he did.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive.


Gotta go. Black helicopters circling my house again...

[professorpan]

Pan suggests that it's:

"okay to have a skeptical approach to stories like these"

Let's try and unpack that for a moment.

I presume that stories "like these" are cases in which multiple children are sexually exploited by adults. Is that right, Pan?

And I presume that his suggestion that we should take a "skeptical approach" to these cases is indicative of his belief that allegations of sexual exploitation are more likely to be false then other criminal allegations.

And I'm left wondering about the logic of such a belief.

Is Pan suggesting that cases in which multiple children disclose the same experience of abuse, by the same people - something that the criminal justice system calls "corroboration" - are cases that are somehow less likely to be substantiated and/or more likely to be the result of false allegations?

i.e. the more children that come forward disclosing abuse by a group, the less likely it is that the sexual abuse occurred?

Is that your position, Pan?

I mean skeptical as in not jumping to conclusions like "It's SRA" or "Those children must have DID" and so forth. And skepticism that the news accounts might not be telling the entire truth. I could imagine many people were quite convinced that the cops had caught the real murderers when they arrested Damien Echols and his two friends, for instance.

As I stated, it seems pretty clear that these children were horrifically abused as claimed in the articles. My skepticism is not *rejection* of the accounts, just a willingness to consider that there is more to the story that we haven't heard.

[Pierre d'Achoppement]

My guess: no actual children were involved.

This despite Jeff’s OP, which gave plenty of detail on the children and their evidence.

My guess is: no actual children were involved in a swingersclub, having sex in front of 100 peoples (as claimed in OP).

[lightningBugout]

My guess: no actual children were involved.

This despite Jeff’s OP, which gave plenty of detail on the children and their evidence.

My guess is: no actual children were involved in a swingersclub, having sex in front of 100 peoples (as claimed in OP).

You're free to your "guess" but what in the world is your guess based on?

[Pierre d'Achoppement]

This i have explained in my first reply in this topic, the one before you told me to fuck off. My impression after reading all the information was a small town misuses three neglected and abused children to finally get rid of an unwelcome swingers club. Somehow to my mind it seems more credible that children picked up on this strong community wish to demonize these sexual deviants in the worst possible way, we all know how sick people can be sometimes right? More credible than kindergarten sexparties involving 100+ people at a time. Still if one of the movies that were allegedly made of these parties would surface, than that would be undeniable proof. However as I understand it, the guy was convicted on the basis of testimony by the children alone (seems CNN put out an audiotape of this, does anyone know?) for among other things (rape etc) destroying possible evidence (clown costumes, videotapes).

[lightningBugout]

Pierre I did not tell you to "fuck off." I self-consciously suggested that I felt like I wanted to say "Fuck you."

I genuinely don't know how to respond to you, but I'd like to try.

"we all know how sick people can be sometimes right?" is stated to build support for the idea that that sickness is about the injustice of discrimination against difference (ie swingers). Rather than, well, pedophiles. If "we all know how sick people can be sometimes right?" then why would we disbelieve this testimony?

In your "guess" these poor kids are still being "used" and abused, but not by perps, simply by intolerant hicks who want to "demonize" people that are different than them. How wonderfully cosmopolitan of you.

You're trying to create a story about injustice and intolerance. But you've decided that "testimony by the children alone" is suspect. Why? Biao pointed out already that testimony by kids is considered reliable. You ignored it. Are you an expert in this or simply a practitioner of "common sense" who coincidentally appears to be actively debunking a case that is well-documented and, so far, not experiencing a whole lot of ambiguity as it moves through the legal system (that whole 5 minute deliberation thing.)

Are you consciously trying to create propaganda or is it just happening inadvertently?

Somehow it all comes down to this for me, the phrase "rape etc."

Not to mention there is something about the phrase "kindergarten sexparties" that makes me nauseous. It's mocking and nasty.

Its just fascinating to me that you keep talking about the need for one of these movies to surface when other posts in the thread have talked about how careful the perps seem to have been about destroying those tapes.

Bummer, I have a feeling you would've really enjoyed evaluating that evidence for yourself....

[Pierre d'Achoppement]

Your style of debating from the beginning was & continues to be offensive as I'm sure you're aware. How is expressing my opinion propaganda? Propaganda for what? How is my use of the phrase "kindergarten sexparties" mocking and nasty when it's practically in the headline? And how do you figure I would enjoy "evaluating" movies involving children being abused? Asking for evidence before you lock people up for life makes you a pedosexual sadist now? But who needs evidence anyway when lack of it is only more proof. I can just imagine this same type of reasoning being used by the jury in their five minute deliberation thing.

[lunarose]

i can sympathize with pete.

"And how do you figure I would enjoy "evaluating" movies involving children being abused? Asking for evidence before you lock people up for life makes you a pedosexual sadist now? But who needs evidence anyway when lack of it is only more proof."

firstly, the idea that anyone would accuse a person who just wants to know what the evidence is before making up their mind of being excited by child porn is just sick. it also proves pierre's point - that these type of accusations are made on the merest of whims, as a way to insult the recipient of the slur, absent any proof.

i was reading another thread around here and the question 'how do you spot satanic child abusers?' came up. and the answer was 'the people that look really upstanding and above reproach, those are the ones. because otherwise why would they put so much energy into looking so clean?

no one said anything. (except thanks for the tip.) what came to my mind was, so what about some buy living alone with tons of pictures of little kids, who follows them home from school in his car and is always trying to lure them away to be alone with him...that's the last person you'd suspect? completely useless argument.

i haven't read the children's testimony, which i would feel the need to do before commenting on the evidence. their behaviour sounds like that of kids i knew who were getting physically and sexually abused, though. pierre's theory could stand some looking into - it's hard to believe child porn would be an attractant at a swinger's club 'hey! let's go from something legal if frowned upon to full-on felonies for no reason!'

i can't imagine adults who went there looking for adult action and finding live child rape would be eager to report it and possibly involve themselves in the commission of a felony, however. especially given the reputation of small southern towns for lack of tolerance.

[Jeff]

I'd like to echo pan's remark, that authentic skepticism is not the same as abject denial. That's what materialist debunkers of the Amazing Randi/Philip Klass school want to make of it, but "skeptic" is too good a word to surrender to them, and they don't deserve it.

We shouldn't be shy about demanding evidence. But in some criminal cases, unless we're sitting on the jury we're not going to be privy to all of it. This jury came back with a guilty verdict in five minutes. I think that is also evidence of a sort.

[sunny]

We shouldn't be shy about demanding evidence. But in some criminal cases, unless we're sitting on the jury we're not going to be privy to all of it. This jury came back with a guilty verdict in five minutes. I think that is also evidence of a sort.

Juries have made mistakes and will continue to make mistakes for a variety of reasons, but I think the Jury system is the last bastion of anything resembling justice in this effed up country and unless I see evidence that this one screwed up I will trust that they made the right decision.

[chiggerbit]

However as I understand it, the guy was convicted on the basis of testimony by the children alone (seems CNN put out an audiotape of this, does anyone know?)

Good God, I hope this doesn't mean that CNN aired actual footage of the children's interviews or testimony, that CNN has sunk to turning children's lives into freak shows for their own ratings.

[leobloom23]

Looking up the meaning of Pierre d'Achoppement is interesting...it means either stumbling block or obstacle...I love the internet...now please continue!

[blanc]

Were this case to have been held in the uk it is quite likely that some evidence would not have been available for publication. Whatever evidence there was convinced the jury. On what basis are we to consider the conviction unsound?

lunarose, you have made reference to another thread, and though the words are mangled, I think you may have referred to a response I made. I wish you had taken up your points then, or would take them up with me by pm if you prefer, because, if I am right in thinking you refer to my post, you are putting an entirely different spin on my words, out of context and misquoted.

[Lurquacious]

the idea that anyone would accuse a person who just wants to know what the evidence is before making up their mind of being excited by child porn is just sick. it also proves pierre's point - that these type of accusations are made on the merest of whims, as a way to insult the recipient of the slur, absent any proof.

Pierre isn’t interested in the evidence. He’s spoken all along in terms of “my guess,” “my opinion,” “my impression,” even after faced with solid evidence – very disturbed children showing highly sexualized behavior, detailed narratives from the children, and independent corroboration of the children’s stories. One child even drew a diagram of the inside of the swingers club and described the décor in detail.

First he denies the children even exist, then switches to a new twist on the old victim-blaming game: okay, so there were children, but they were abused by uptight townspeople in a complicated conspiracy to rid themselves of an unwanted hotbed of free love.

Yet, as I explained several pages back, the club had been closed for several months before one of the children found the courage to tell her foster mother what had happened to them there.

I had Pierre down as an aggrieved swinger who can’t admit to himself that some of his fuckbuddies might actually be perverts. But now I’m beginning to wonder:

Pedosexual

Pedosexual is an interesting word – and not a common one. A quick Google brings up only 3,250 results (as compared to 5,330,000 for pedophile); the first ten results are:

a couple of slang dictionary definitions (“Another word for pedophile”);

postings on a board called sexcriminals.com from someone with the handle Proud Pedosexual;

A German site, paedosexualitaet.de, which carries a “Pedosexual Resources Directory” promoting “volitional pedosexual relations”;

A couple of “Forbidden access” pages;

Four citations of an article in the Archives of Sexual Medicine called “Effects on Boy-Attracted Pedosexual Males of Viewing Boy Erotica,” by one David L. Riegel, who asserts: “many issues like this one regarding boy/older male relationships which may have a sexual component are clouded with questionable data.”

Googling Riegel himself shows him to be an advocate of “responsible boylove.”

Perhaps if I went beyond the first ten Google entries, I’d find less enthusiasm for the practice of “pedosexuality,” but I don’t have the stomach for the search.