Good cops work to change the world.

Bad cops work at superficially changing public opinion of themselves with generalisations.

Hi cruisertwelve.

It's_A_Farking_Secret: CruiserTwelve: It sounds like it was the mom of one of the three victims, not all three, that was sleeping with the boss.

Did you not read the article? I mean I too am slightly suspicious and suspect retardation on either the part of the kids or the cop involved, but there were TWO "victims" and they were both children of the same woman, the one who was sleeping with his boss.

BTW from the article while it's not directly stated it seems pretty implied that mom still contends it did happen and the kids are in denial. CYA and all.

You're asking a cop to get details right. Come on, be reasonable.

Paris1127: But did they get to have orgies in hot air balloons with giraffes and Chuck Norris? Because the McMartin kids did... and the cops believed it...

did they really say that? that's worse than the made up crap from the kids that I heard. this is horrible.

nothing justifies this kind of crap. the question is how to enact justice after the fact for something as heinous as these kinds of cases?

austerity101: doyner: And yet people don't understand why it's a bad idea to allow capital punishment for child rapeanything.

FTFM.

Dude, sad, but true.

Gen. Apathy: Yeah but Michael Jackson is guilty because prosecutors never lie. And OJ, he's guilty too.

thanks for playing sheeple

Can I favorite you?

brigid_fitch: Paris1127: But did they get to have orgies in hot air balloons with giraffes and Chuck Norris? Because the McMartin kids did... and the cops believed it...

Wow, I had completely forgotten about that trial. You forgot the whole Satanic Cult angle, though. That's the part I mostly remember. Oh, and the fact that the initial complaint came from a woman who had already been diagnosed with schizophrenia & ended up drinking herself to death before the trial began.

Compare and contrast what Happened in the McMartin and Wenatchee cases, with the historical accounts of a the Salem witch trials. You will find them disturbingly similar, down to many of the details of what the children alleged happened. And while I might be able to forgive 17th century New Englanders for believing in horned devils and witches flying through the air; I'm not sure what the 20th century cops' excuses were

fnordfocus: Loren: The problem was at the trial it turned out the public defender hadn't prepared a defense. What else was he supposed to do?

Again, WTF? Wouldn't his union provide a decent lawyer? If not, a cop could sure as heck afford to pay for one.

The charges were unrelated to his work, why should the union help? I don't know why he didn't have any money.

angst178n: In my opinion...

Since the age of 18 the children in this case have been committing a crime. They allowed a lie to keep going that cost an innocent man his freedom. They knew it was a lie.

After you are an adult then you should have to bear the burden of your crime fully. In situations like this the people who lied should have to serve the amount of time in prison that they caused an innocent man to serve.

Except they believed they really were victims. When they realized it was all garbage they came forward.

Gilligan_Buddy: JohnBigBootay: Sadly, this is only news because he may get out. I'd wager there's hundreds, if not thousands of people wrongfully imprisoned for this. It's the salem witch trials of the modern age. Not that there aren't real offenders, of course there are.

Probably more like tens of thousands of innocents. Child abuse has the highest rate of conviction of any crime (these are stats from 10 years ago or so, from the top of my head), yet it also has the highest false conviction rate of any crime.

Also, I'm too tired to reread the article, but I'm assuming he is already out? Said he was in prison nearly 20 years and was convicted in 1985, so I'm thinking he's been out for 4-5 years already.

Yeah, his sentence was commuted earlier when serious problems with the prosecution were found.

I wish that there were a special place in hell for a woman who convinces her children that they were violently sodomized by their father to get back at him for being a crummy husband.

Unfortunately. hell likely doesn't exist, so we're left to hope for cancer of the face. :\

det: Maybe they just wanted to get a new daddy...

I forgot about that one. Hilarious!

Noam Chimpsky: It's strange that there wouldn't be some obvious medical evidence at the time, considering the violent nature of the crimes he was charged with. If there was medical evidence, then something isn't adding up.

The dad's sentence was commuted by the governor after it was discovered that the prosecution sat on the medical reports that showed there was no evidence of such abuse. He now just needs to clear his name.

/I saw "Witch Hunt" about this very thing recently.. absolutely terrifying.

arcas: They said they realized as adults the abuse never happened, and they came forward because it was the right thing to do.

Adults? Uh hello? They're age 33 and 30 now. They became adults over a decade ago. Why did they wait to come forward until now? Did their supply of ice cream finally run out?

I was wondering that, too...

Fat and Nasty 86: What would YOU do for a Klondike bar?

This is why we should preemptively rape everyone.

Gen. Apathy: Yeah but Michael Jackson is guilty because prosecutors never lie. And OJ, he's guilty too.

thanks for playing sheeple

Trying to figure out of you're being snarky or if this is some sort of troll.

TFA:
For several years, Spencer's appeals failed. He was denied parole five times because he refused to admit guilt and enter a sex-offender treatment program.

One of the (many) problems I have with the way we treat "sex offenders".

We punish them for saying they are innocent, and reward them for saying they are guilty. Under such circumstances most innocent people will eventually say they are guilty. If this cop had said he was guilty like they tried to make him do for 20 years, they would still be telling his adult children they were blocking the memory of the abuse.

Seriously, I understand how important overcoming denial is to the treatment of sexual deviants. But we need to stop trying to force it.

Paris1127: But did they get to have orgies in hot air balloons with giraffes and Chuck Norris? Because the McMartin kids did... and the cops believed it...

If Chuck Norris wants to rape your child it is a privilege.

Tex_Arkana: arcas: They said they realized as adults the abuse never happened, and they came forward because it was the right thing to do.

Adults? Uh hello? They're age 33 and 30 now. They became adults over a decade ago. Why did they wait to come forward until now? Did their supply of ice cream finally run out?

I was wondering that, too...

Several possibilities:

1) They were told for a decade, while growing up, that something happened they don't remember. This would not seem so strange to a child who also hears stories about what they were like as babies. After a while they would put it out of their mind. It might well take a while for enough bits and pieces to surface for them to put together some kind of coherent whole.

2) No one wants to think they put their innocent father in prison. When everyone tells you he was guilty and you just don't remember it, it can be much easier to just accept that version of events. Later when the truth starts to surface, you don't want to face it. So you go into denial.

3) They may have been working on this for a while. The wheels of justice turn slowly. They may have been trying to get a hearing before a judge for years. Typically prosecutors will do anything to avoid admitting error, so they probably fought against the children's efforts.

If this guy really is innocent, then my heart goes out to him.

This situation sucks in so different many ways that it's almost overwhelming to contemplate.

It's_A_Farking_Secret: Did you not read the article? I mean I too am slightly suspicious and suspect retardation on either the part of the kids or the cop involved, but there were TWO "victims" and they were both children of the same woman, the one who was sleeping with his boss.

I don't know what you read, but here's what I read:

"In 1985, Spencer was also convicted of abusing a 4-year-old stepson, who was not at Friday's hearing.

The Court of Appeals ruled his testimony was not necessary, given his age at the time of the alleged crimes and the fact that his mother had had an affair with Krause's supervisor."

It's quite clear that he was also convicted of a charge of abusing a third child, his stepson. The mother of that child was having an affair with his boss, not the mother of his two real children who are now recanting their testimony.

Retort: Good cops work to change the world.

Bad cops work at superficially changing public opinion of themselves with generalisations.

Hi cruisertwelve.

Generalizations? Like assuming things about people because of their occupation?

CruiserTwelve: It's_A_Farking_Secret: Did you not read the article? I mean I too am slightly suspicious and suspect retardation on either the part of the kids or the cop involved, but there were TWO "victims" and they were both children of the same woman, the one who was sleeping with his boss.

I don't know what you read, but here's what I read:

"In 1985, Spencer was also convicted of abusing a 4-year-old stepson, who was not at Friday's hearing.

The Court of Appeals ruled his testimony was not necessary, given his age at the time of the alleged crimes and the fact that his mother had had an affair with Krause's supervisor."

It's quite clear that he was also convicted of a charge of abusing a third child, his stepson. The mother of that child was having an affair with his boss, not the mother of his two real children who are now recanting their testimony.

Don't forget this part: According to Krause, the detective, the children were together when they were abused.

Both Matthew Spencer and Tetz testified their stepbrother was never abused by their father.

Selective quoting is disingenuous.

Retort: You're asking a cop to get details right. Come on, be reasonable.

Go back and read the article again. Then tell me who gets the FAIL at reading comprehension. Hint: It's not me.

onebadgungan: Selective quoting is disingenuous.

I was refuting this post by It's_A_Farking_Secret:

Did you not read the article? I mean I too am slightly suspicious and suspect retardation on either the part of the kids or the cop involved, but there were TWO "victims" and they were both children of the same woman, the one who was sleeping with his boss.

The part of the article I quoted directly refuted his statement. The part of the article you quoted was irrelevant to what he said.

I'll say it very simply: It's_A_Farking_Secret said there were two "victims." The article says there were three. It's_A_Farking_Secret said that the mother of those two "victims" was sleeping with the cop's boss. The article says the mother of the third victim was sleeping with his boss.

See? That's what I was trying to point out. This: According to Krause, the detective, the children were together when they were abused.

Both Matthew Spencer and Tetz testified their stepbrother was never abused by their father. was irrelevant to my point.

mud_shark: doyner: mud_shark: The anti-death-penalty-pansies just want to ban capital punishment but have no regard for anyone else unfairly convicted.


This ruins what otherwise was an ok argument. Where do you get this shiat?

Okay, I've already admitted to being a bit "unfocused" today (actually getting more and more out of focus as the beer leaves my fridge), but there are people who argue that we should not have capital punishment because sometimes innocent people are convicted.

Are you with me so far? Have I used any words that confound your vocabulary?

Okay, good. Let's continue then. These same people who argue that innocents are sometimes found guilty and sentenced to death do not seem to give a flying fark if some innocent is found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

Shouldn't we focus on reforming our courts so innocent people are never convicted rather than making sure they are not given the ultimate punishment?

Tell the guy serving 20 years for walking on water (or whatever - oh, sorry, was that obscure?) even though he didn't do it that it's okay because at least we're not executing him,

I look back to the last time I served on a jury - I couldn't believe the charges that were brought against the defendant. It was not something where the death penalty was even a consideration, but the charges brought against him were not supported by the evidence. And yet, the defendant spent months in jail of a crime he didn't commit (IMO and the opinion of every fellow juror that I spoke with).

Is that type of "justice" okay with you? Is it okay for someone to serve time in prison when they are innocent so long as they don't get the death penalty?

The principles upon which this country was founded do not state "innocent until proven guilty, unless it's a misdemeanor". I don't care if you are arrested for jay-walking, if you are going to be found guilty in a court of law, you must be proven guilty. If you are convicted of jay-walking while merely standing on the sidewalk, then we have a problem.

I agreed with your main point about innocents. I disagreed with you that anti death penalty folks like myself don't care about innocent people being incarcerated. Nice hair trigger though.

I agree with cruiser12....this guy had to know what the results of his guilty plea would be.

Something smells here. Could it be, the familty will now be very wealthy?

Wa had is own witchtrial in Wenatchee. I remember Perez the det. on 60 minutes. There was a true zealot. Our present Gov, then attorney gen., backed him to the hilt.

CruiserTwelve: onebadgungan: Selective quoting is disingenuous.

I was refuting this post by It's_A_Farking_Secret:

Did you not read the article? I mean I too am slightly suspicious and suspect retardation on either the part of the kids or the cop involved, but there were TWO "victims" and they were both children of the same woman, the one who was sleeping with his boss.

The part of the article I quoted directly refuted his statement. The part of the article you quoted was irrelevant to what he said.

I'll say it very simply: It's_A_Farking_Secret said there were two "victims." The article says there were three. It's_A_Farking_Secret said that the mother of those two "victims" was sleeping with the cop's boss. The article says the mother of the third victim was sleeping with his boss.

See? That's what I was trying to point out. This: According to Krause, the detective, the children were together when they were abused.

Both Matthew Spencer and Tetz testified their stepbrother was never abused by their father. was irrelevant to my point.

mea culpa. I thought you were talking about something else.

I'll just leave this here...



...no reason... just thought somebody might want some ice-cream or something.

/hot

mud_shark: This is another example of why guilty verdicts should be beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is an easy thing to say when reading a story about a guy who was clearly innocent. If it was decided that a greater level of proof was required for a conviction the inevitable follow-up story would feature victims dismayed at the amount of criminals being let off. Can you honestly say you would then not complain about how easy it is to get away with crime?

Where have some of you been. It has been shown that some officials work hard to convince children that they were molested even when there is evidence to the contrary. I think the father should have a chance to "molest" the officer that brow beat the kids into giving false testimony and then find the ex-wife for more of the same.

grumpyoldmann: Where have some of you been. It has been shown that some officials work hard to convince children that they were molested even when there is evidence to the contrary. I think the father should have a chance to "molest" the officer that brow beat the kids into giving false testimony and then find the ex-wife for more of the same.

I'm not convinced that happened in this case, particlularly because the guy pled no contest to the charges knowing he'd spend the rest of his life in prison. It doesn't make sense to me. If you're going to prison for the rest of your life at least take a shot at a trial.

This could just as easily been a case of the kids deciding that Dad had served enough time so they recanted their testimony. I'm not going to conclude that this guy was wrongly imprisoned because two of the three victims recanted after 25 years. I'm not saying he's guilty, I'm saying that this article doesn't provide enough information to come to a conclusion either way.

Zombalupagus: USA! USA! We're Number One!

... at jailing our citizens. The United States has the highest incarceration rate and the biggest prison population of any country in the world.

/my state doesn't have its own Fark tag but still holds the record for the highest percentage of people in the justice system out of all 50 states: 1 in 13 adults.

Your state is entirely peopled with criminals

Zombalupagus: USA! USA! We're Number One!
... at jailing our citizens. The United States has the highest incarceration rate and the biggest prison population of any country in the world.

Maybe because minor crimes don't earn us a beheading in a soccer stadium, or a visit from the roving Chinese execution van, etc.

IonBeam2 2009-07-11 08:27:41 PM
Why does everyone say kids are innocent? Children are monsters and should all be locked up until they are 18 for the sake of public safety.

I don't blame the kids.. I blame the farking overzeolous over ambitious prosecuter wanting to prove a point or whatever the fark she wanted to prove.. she manipulated the kids so she could get a farking conviction.

I hope she burns in hell.

As for the father? an ex cop who also is a child molester in prison AND he is still alive? WOW!! Well I guess God does look after those who are truly innocent!

I'm all for capital punishment for serious crimes such as child molestation BUT only if it is 110% irrefutable! and a child's recollection of events while by no means unimportant is definitely NOT irrefutable.
Unless someone is caught red handed raping a kid or murdering someone cold blooded etc no one should be put to death.

See what happens when you're within easy driving distance of Seattle? Seattle is a farking plague, and it spreads its tentacles far and wide.

SuperNinjaToad: I don't blame the kids.. I blame the farking overzeolous over ambitious prosecuter wanting to prove a point or whatever the fark she wanted to prove.. she manipulated the kids so she could get a farking conviction.

Your assertion assumes that this prosecutor woke up one day and thought," Hey, I'm not doing anything today. I think I'll pick some random person and talk his kids into saying he molested them and put him in jail for life. Yeah, that sounds like fun! Now, what kind of person would be most likely to not put up a fight. Hmmm... A cop! Yeah, cops always just give up and accept whatever happens to them! That's the ticket! I'll put a cop in jail for life for no reason in the world except to entertain myself! I guess I'll have to talk some other cops into helping me with my diabolical plan, but that'll be easy. Cops are never protective of each other and will be happy to put another cop in prison for no reason."

Your belief is totally irrational on its face.