Two items of OUTRAGE, both coming from my review of the San Mateo Daily Journal this morning:
The first item is a letter to the Journal, sent by two San Mateo County residents expressing their outrage at the poor job San Mateo county has done of controlling molester william hamilton ayres, who molested many young boys while he was alleging to provide private psychiatric treatment and psychiatric evaluation services and court testimony for the County Juvenile System.
You can read the letter at the San Mateo Daily Journal. I've copied it here:
Why is there no public outrage in San Mateo County over the William Ayres’ child molestation charges when similar charges in Pennsylvania brought rapid public outcries from the whole country? Do we value football more than the lives of young boys? Sandusky, unlike Ayres as a doctor, did not take an oath to “do no harm,” and boys were not sent to him for psychiatric treatment.
Ayres’ attorney is now using dementia as an excuse for his being unfit to stand trial or remain in custody at Napa State Mental Hospital for ongoing evaluation. If the County had acted on complaints filed in the ’80s and ceased sending referrals to Ayres, some 40+ young men would not still be seeking justice, to say nothing of the three victims who are now dead and will never have justice. Let us hope the county court will follow Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti’s statement that Ayres “belongs locked up” and not continue to treat him with deference and “kid gloves.”
The second outrageous item is an article in the same newspaper. There is an article this morning talking about charges against yet another alleged San Mateo County child molester, this one arrested last week. The article talks about Kyle Clifton Vogt's molestation of at least four girls, at least one of them very young, and of alleged threats he made to the girls if they spoke up. My problem with "The Daily Journal" is the same that it has been frequently in the past:
I think that The Daily Journal is trying to present an "impartial" reporting perspective on the matter. But as they have often done in the past, they keep ascribing blame to child molestation victims by describing the events as a "sexual relationship" as if the matter were some kind mutual... well... relationship. This is incompetence on the part of the Journal at best, and maliciously abusive and damaging on take-away. Here's the ACTUAL language that the Journal had the gall to print:
"A man arrested last week for having an ongoing sexual relationship with a girl beginning when she was 5 likely has at least three other victims and maybe more, according to South San Francisco police."
-March 06, 2012, 05:00 AM Daily Journal staff report
Is there a child molester friendly editor on the Journal's staff? Perhaps this is just a regurgitation of language that appeared in a police report, perhaps it is just poor editing (By the way, I checked SFGate, and they are reporting that the investigating officer uses words like "rape" and "molestation." I don't see the word "relationship" in the SFGate article.) Either way, it's reprehensible and disgusting, and they keep doing it over and over.
Let me give the Journal a helpful tip to figure out wording when in doubt:
A FIVE YEAR OLD GIRL DOES NOT HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL TO DECIDE TO ENTER INTO A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A 36 YEAR OLD "MAN."
Stupid fucking morons.
UPDATE 3/7/2012: We now know who the fucking moron at the San Mateo Daily Journal is. Bill Silverfarb wrote this, this morning:
Kyle Clifton Vogt, 36, was arrested Thursday after a two-week investigation by police that revealed he allegedly had carried on a sexual relationship with his girlfriend’s half-sister for at least eight years starting when the victim was just 5.By the way: Police want other potential victims or people with information about Vogt to call them:
-March 07, 2012, 05:00 AM By Bill Silverfarb Daily Journal staff