Discrediting and Publicly Bashing Witnesses and Potential Victims

Now, I will be the first to say that there is still a chance that Mr. Adams is innocent.  My issue, and the issue of many others is how the witnesses and potential victims are being treated by supporters of Mr. Adams.  It is almost a "you hurt us, so we are going to hurt you" kind of mentality.  You know, that thing we tell our kids not to do all the time.

  The biggest one that stands out for me is the treatment of Ms. April Thompson, a teacher at the time of the closure in the preschool section of the school.  People have said everything from, "she should be arrested for leaving the room of children to go have lunch" to "she is lying because she has something to gain" and much much more.  Although the statements regarding Ms. Thompson bother me the most, I'm going to look at ALL of the witness and victim statements and the ways they have been bashed by supporters of Mr. Adams.

Case 1 and 2, A.D. and J.T.  Both children are now in their young adult years and it was instantly decided by some supporters that these two got together and decided to tell this story to finance their new BMW's.  What those accusing these two of such terrible things failed to note though, was the date when these girls originally came forward, 2000.  More than 10 years ago when these girls were 9-10 years old.  I guess these two had their master plan in the works way back then.  Yes, DA Scully did not bring up charges at that time.  Does this mean their reports were untrue?  Not at all!  We also should not assume that more information has not come to the DA's office regarding these two children.  The detectives and DA are not going to include their entire witness statements in the summary attached to the arrest warrant.

Case 3, EP.  This child made her report in 2011.  Since she went to school with AD and JT, it can be safely assumed that she did not report until the current investigation began.  Does this make it not true?  Not at all.  Many, many, victims of child molestation and abuse do not come forward right away.

Case 4, EW.  This child's original report was in 2006.  Not part of AD and JT's complaint, but a different one altogether.  Not recent after the closure.  It is also interesting to me that she seems to have attended CFS at the same time as EP, JT, and AD.  Do you really think this child had abuse happen when she was around 10 and decided 6 years after her schoolmates came forward just because they told her to?

The children in Cases 1-4 have been vilified as trying to just get financial gain from this situation.  These children were 9 and 10 when the original complaint in 2000 occurred and EW was 16 when she came forward.  Financial gain is a very unlikely "motivation" for these children.

Case 5, BR.  A current CFS student who was interviewed either just before or just after the closure of the school.  This child DID disclose to SAFE interviewers that abuse occurred.  Funny enough, no CFS supporters want to talk about this little girl...

Case 6, Jane Doe/Bethany Solomon.  While I agree, upon first reading the paragraph, it does appear that Ms. Solomon claims she saw something and did nothing for several years.  While yes, this would mean she did not full fill her requirements as a mandated reporter, it is also entirely feasible that she saw something that bothered her, but she didn't want to think the worst of Mr. Adams.  When the recent allegations came to light, she might have thought the incident she witnessed may not have been as innocent as she was hoping.  This is pure speculation on my part, BUT to repeatedly bash her for coming forward when she is only given a small blurb in the case summary isn't really accomplishing anything. This is not 1st hand statements.  This is not Ms. Solomon's own written account.  We cannot presume to know everything she told the detectives.  It should also be noted that there is no date on when she was interviewed.  Perhaps she DID come forward then but like the other cases, there wasn't enough evidence to do anything about it at the time.  I would like to personally hear more of what she claims to have witnessed and the events that led up to her speaking to detectives, but that is something, I, like everyone else, will have to wait to hear more about.

Case 7, AP/April Thompson.  Like I said before, the treatment of this one by supporters bothers me the most.  Everything indicates Ms. Thompson did EXACTLY as she was supposed to and yet she has been painted as the villain.  She left for her lunch break.  Unlike what some nut jobs think, this does not mean she left a room of 3 and 4 year olds alone.  She left them with another teacher..or possibly Mr. Adams himself.  The report isn't clear in that aspect, but it doesn't really matter.  When she returned she found Mr. Adams in the room, and he was doing something she found inappropriate.  She might not have ran out of the room that instant and called police, but it is also important to realize this is where the charge of misdemeanor comes into play.  What Ms. Thompson actually witnessed was not the touching of the vagina which the child later reported to her parents, but when the was told the next day by the parents what the child reported, she felt her fears were confirmed.  With her report coming June 2011, it is fairly safe to assume she reported the incident right away and could have been one of the things that led to the closure of the school.

What I also find interesting, is that the words Ms. Thompson reports the child told her parents are the same words Ms. Mertens used in her claims.    The fact that a 4 year old did not outright disclose anything at a SAFE interview means nothing.  It doesn't mean she said "it didn't happen" as some supporters are claiming.  It just means she didn't outwardly say it did.  As so many want to point out the interviewing techniques used in the McMartin case, it is also important to realize that interviewing techniques have changed...a lot.  They don't ask leading questions.

While none of this means any of these allegations are true....it also means they aren't false.  When supporters are trying to tear the witnesses and potential victims apart, it makes them appear weak and desperate.  What if it is true?  What if EW, EP, JT, and AD all were victimized by Mr. Adams and you made a statement that these children were just "in it for the money"?  I would feel terrible.  I also fully acknowledge that Mr. Adams may be 100% innocent and these people may have all brought up allegations falsely.  My point is, we don't know at this point.  Either way these children are victims. Either of molestation or from adults convincing them molestation occurred when it didn't.  We all have VERY little information in front of us.  Forming an opinion is fine.  But speculating publicly is harmful to both the victims, the accused, and yourself.

My point?  Think before you speak and type.