....in which I get technical

There has been a lot of talk that the Department of Social Services and the Citrus Heights Police Department overreacted to the rambling accusations of a “disgruntled ex-employee”. It has also been pointed out that the DSS has a different level of “proof” than the CHPD or the District Attorney’s office. One poster on the SacBee forums pointed it out nicely:

BookWormMom
When the man OWNS the school, it is an entirely different story.

I've posted this before, but I will explain it again...

When you apply for a DSS license to operate a preschool you are subjecting yourself to THEIR policies. One of which, is that they can suspend your license while they investigate. Much like you agree that the police/DMV can suspend your driving license if you are suspected of violating the laws of the road. Because he OWNS the school it is exactly the same as if it were an in-home daycare. It can't continue to operate while it is being investigated. This is how things work when you are dealing with a private school...something you CHOSE for your child.

They are 100% correct. Being a private preschool, Creative Frontiers and licensee Robert Adams, are subject to the rules of the Department of Social Services. Exactly the same as if he were running a daycare from his home. It IS NOT the same as if he was the principal at a public school where they would just remove the person in question and investigate.

The application Mr. Adams would have signed (LIC200A) states the following:

18. APPLICANT(S)/LICENSEE(S) RESPONSIBILITIES:
A. IN ADDITION TO COMPLYING WITH THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO LICENSING AND FIRE SAFETY, I/WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER STATE, FEDERAL AND/OR LOCAL LAWS WHICH ARE NOT ENFORCED BY THIS AGENCY BUT THAT MAY NEED TO BE MET, SUCH AS ZONING, BUILDING, SANITATION AND LABOR REQUIREMENTS.

The Health and Safety Codes mentioned in the application are commonly referred to as Title 22 regulations. In the case of Creative Frontiers/Robert Adams, the DSS cites that the applicable law that was violated (as indicated in the DSS report) are 1596.885 (a) (b) and (c) and 1596.8897 (a) (1) (2) (4) and it references Regulation sections 101170 101212 (d) (1) (C) (D) 101223 (a) (1) (3) 101230 (C)


Like me, most of you probably don’t know off the top of your head what Health and Safety Code Section 1596.885 or 1596.8897 state. Good thing you have me to look it up for you. 1596.885 states (stay with me, it’s long):

"The department may deny an application for or suspend or revoke any license, registration, or special permit issued under this act upon any of the following grounds and in the manner provided in this act:” "(a) Violation by the licensee, registrant, or holder of a special permit of this act or of the rules and regulations promulgated under this act.
"(b) Aiding, abetting, or permitting the violating of this act or of the rules and regulations promulgated under this act.
"(c) Conduct which is inimical to the health, morals, welfare, or safety of either an individual in or receiving services from the facility or the people of this state.

There is also a part (d) and (e) but they are not applicable.

Still with me? I know it is a lot of information.

Basically, in English, this means the DSS can revoke a license if it feels the need to. The "aiding, abetting, or permitting" reference is most likely in reference to Ms. Higgins' alleged failure to report. The alleged molestation falls within section (c). In reading this, it is hard to deny that DSS was well within their guidelines upon their shutting of the school.

Section 1596.8897 is in regards to the Criminal Background clearance. It states:

(a) The Department shall conduct a criminal record review of all persons specified in Health and Safety Code Section 1596.871(b). The Department has the authority to approve or deny a facility license, or employment, residence or presence in the facility, based on the results of this review.

It is easy to get confused. It is a lot of information and legal-speak. One thing is crystal-clear. DSS was definitely within their legal rights to revoke the license. There was not one, but several complaints that were considered to have substantial enough evidence to justify the revocation. With the DSS, this can mean the original complaint plus an employee confirming, verifying time sheets, looking through files, etc. Ms. Mertens not having criminal background clearance and being left alone with the children(as required for ALL people working in the school)was enough to warrant the temporary revocation. It is also important to note that it was NOT the fault of Ms. Mertens herself nor AARP to have this done. As a licensed childcare center, Creative Frontiers School was required by law to send Ms. Mertens for this process or apply to have her fingerprints transferred to the facility. Again, this is stated clearly in the application, LIC 200A:

D. I/WE SHALL ENSURE THAT ALL PERSONS SUBJECT TO FINGERPRINT REQUIREMENTS SHALL ALSO SUBMIT A CHILD ABUSE INDEX CHECK FORM TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

The blame game that has gone on has been preposterous. The insinuation that the DSS was trying to make something out of nothing to close the school down is just downright absurd. They were within their legal rights to do so. Because of the nature of the complaint they received, they needed to act for the safety of the children. This would be the same in ANY preschool setting. This is the way that preschool licensing works. It is not like public elementary school where a person can be removed. In this case, Mr. Adams is a named licensee. The school could not possibly be allowed to operate while they investigate the claims. They wouldn't do it for anyone else, why should Mr. Adams be the exception?

The business license from the school was also revoked on the same day. Honestly I am not sure of the EXACT reasons listed for the revocation of the license as I have not been able to find the closure paperwork, but if you refer to the Agreement to Postpone the Appeal Paperwork, it states that the school was closed...

"...pursuant to Citrus Heights Municipal Code ("CHMC") (ADD SYMBOL)22-114, the City issued a temporary suspension of the Business License for Creative Frontiers on the basis that a serious and immediate threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public exists, and also issued a notice to the revocation of the General Business effective fifteen(15) days from the service of the notice of revocation, unless a timely appeal was filed...."

This doesn't exactly help for the reasoning for the closure as Citrus Heights Municipal Code, CHMC 22-114 is regarding the method of revocation and how to appeal, however CHMC 22-113 states:

Sec. 22-113. Grounds for Revocation.
A general business license may be revoked for any of the following reasons, if the Finance Director finds in writing:
(1) The business is operated in a manner or is housed on premises or within a building which violates or is in violation of any City, state, federal, or otherwise applicable codes, rules, regulations or laws; or
(2) The holder of the license has violated one or more conditions upon which the license has been issued; or
(3) Pursuant to the Business and Professions Code Section 16000 subdivision (c), the applicant or business no longer holds, a valid contractor's license issued by the State of California, Contractor's State License Board.

After reviewing this, it isn't clear if it was the numerous building code violations (1), or possibly that the conditions upon which the license was granted were violated with the revocation of the preschool license (2).

Upon reading all of this information, can anyone really say that the Department of Social Services or the City of Citrus Heights acted unfairly? Can you really say it was a conspiracy theory? That the DSS just needed a "big case"? No. Common sense tells you that they acted well-within their own laws and regulations. Something Mr. Adams agreed to when he signed those applications. What about poor Mr. Bob? That's a matter of opinion.

No Winners

Several posts have got me thinking...who "wins" in this case? In short, no one. But then the term "victim" has been tossed around a lot as well. It got me thinking, what is a victim? Who are the victims in this case?

Dictionary.com defines victim in the following manner:

vic·tim
[vik-tim]
noun
1. a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency: a victim of an automobile accident.
2. a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency: a victim of misplaced confidence; the victim of a swindler; a victim of an optical illusion.
3. a person or animal sacrificed or regarded as sacrificed: war victims.
4. a living creature sacrificed in religious rites.

Well...we can immediately cross #3 and #4 off the list. Despite the questions I have regarding what was going on at CFS, I'm pretty sure there were not any animal or human sacrifices for religious purposes. Despite what some supporters say, there is no war going on between the City of Citrus Heights the Citrus Heights Police Department, and the Department of Social Services and Robert B. Adams and the Creative Frontiers School. So, nope, no war victims here.

That leaves definition #1 and #2: "a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency" and "a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency".

A victim of molestation certainly falls into definition #1. Families that were led to believe the school was running up to code, that the school would reopen, the Mr. Adams’ resume was factual, they would fall into definition #2.
Just yesterday on the SacBee website, MayB5150 wrote:

What's really sad here is that there are already victims. I was reading the blogs at the doubtingcfs website (which is amazing, by the way and some things occurred to me.
Parents that showed up to pick up their kids and saw police there--Trust me, that feeling you get in your stomach when you see police at your child's school is an indescribable, gut-wrenching fear; victims.

The children that day that saw police with their guns walking around the school, asking questions, moving kids from place to place, seeing their teachers confused and afraid. Their school shut down because the adults that were supposed to be in charge of making sure the school was safe and up to code failed them. Parents trusted that they were leaving their children in a safe environment, and were also failed; victims.

A family that has to sit by their husband, brother, father and defend him to countless people, whether he's guilty or not; victims.
Parents of CFS children that once considered themselves "family" with the other parents at the school, friendships broken, public back-biting, a "family" divided; victims.

Of course, most importantly-there are at least 7 children that have come forward with accounts of what happened to them. These children told their stories, and it was determined that their stories merited an investigation. These children, no matter the outcome of the trial, will never forget what has happened to them. (even if it's determined that there was no molestation, their school closed down and they will associate the closing with what they said to parents and authorities, not the code violations) There are at least 7 families that have to try to help their children cope with all of this, and see people actually calling their children liars on public forums; victims.

Finally, there is an opportunist circling the supporters like a vulture. He will write a book, maybe make some money, using the grief of Mr. Bob's family and supporters to further his personal agenda. He is the ringleader of calling children liars--not just these children--but many others if you check out his "credentials" and "resume." Mr. Bob's name will forever be linked with all of the other "innocent" convicted pedophiles on said vulture's website. It hasn't happened yet, supporters, but it will. And when it does, you too will be victims.

This got me thinking about the victims here. While there are a lot of victims, the level of “victimization” is quite vast. Comparing the victim of molestation, with someone who was merely upset by showing up to a police force isn’t really the same. I’m sure that isn’t what MayB5150 meant or intended. It just got me thinking. While the parents and CFS supporters could be classified as victims, as could the Adams family, children who were scared the day of the closure, and shunned ex supporters and employees, the real victims are the children, at least 7 of them who have had their innocence stolen. And that goes for either way this situation turns out. Either this really happened, or they were part of a game played by some adult. The fact that there are 7 different children, who quite possibly had their innocence stolen and are now forced into a very child unfriendly judicial system through no fault of their own, definitely makes me raise an eyebrow…but without the whole story, it isn’t right to jump to conclusions.

One thing is certain, these victims need a voice. These children need to not be accused of being in it for a payoff. They need to not be mocked and ridiculed. Comments like, “the little girl who cried pee pee” in reference to the little girl who, using her own words to describe her vagina, reportedly told her parents “Mr. Bob touched my pee pee”. Unacceptable for supporters of Mr. Adams, ESPECIALLY his own brother, to mock such innocence.

As this case moves forward, more and more information will come out. Until then, I hope that the mocking of potential victims, ceases from the supporters of Mr. Adams. These are children you are talking about. What if it were your child? What if someone said these thing about your little one? What if you had the courage to come forward to speak of abuse that happened to you when you were younger and read the hateful words that you were only doing so to get a payoff? Or that you are not a "true victim of molestation"? Devastating. While Mr. Adams guilt or innocence is undecided legally, mocking alleged victims doesn't help him.

Right now, there are an awful lot of people losing in this case, and very few people winning. I want to encourage any possible victims in this case to speak to law enforcement. I would love to help you, but unfortunately do not have the resources, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so. In addition, I wouldn't want to jeopardize the case. To the many victims in this case, stay strong.

The City of Citrus Heights Police Department can be reached by clicking the link below.

Contact the CHPD

The Sacramento District Attorney's Office has a victim/witness program which assists victims of crimes.

Information for Sac County Victim Witness Program

Say What??????

I am continually blown away by some of the things that supporters of CFS/Mr. Adams are allowed to say publicly on the school's Facebook page.

This is the most recent ridiculous comment. Name removed, for purposes of posting here:

I agree Dan, but also, I can't help but think that the kids who have been recruited as victims will also suffer tremendously. I'm not saying that true victims of molestation shouldn't be taken seriously. They absolutely should be! But I believe that the concept of molestation has to be carefully considered before accusations are made, both for the benefit of the accuser and the accused. This situation just reeks of Irma making a complaint that clearly fit the criteria of molestation, but then when her complaint turned out to be fraudulent, solicitation for alternative victims began. There are plenty of children who are being blatantly abused, neglected, and molested who are being ignored while these children are being led to believe that they were molested by someone they respected when they didn't feel that way before authority figures implied there was danger by their actions and this so called "investigation". Before strangers needed them to serve as pawns in a bureaucratic agenda, they were kids, and now they are victims. They probably don't even know how vulnerable they are to further exploitation by these strangers if this case goes to trial, because these people have already shown themselves to be untrustworthy and ruthless in achieving their goal at all costs. Do the kids and the kids' parents have any idea that their children will be considered just collateral damage in this farce?

This whole fiasco is a mockery of those who are truly suffering from crimes actually committed and not being dealt with while resources are being spent on this train wreck. The people involved in this have some explaining to do

Are they insane? If the children are proven by a court of law to have been victimized, only one person "recruited" them and that person is their abuser.

Not only is this ridiculous, insulting comment allowed to sit on the CFS Facebook Site, it is also then "liked" by Mr. Adams family members, a daughter and his brother. I'm all for First Amendment rights. Supporters can say what they want regarding the case, but I am surprised that the Adams' family allows this comment, along with many more offensive comments to stay up on their PUBLIC Facebook page. Is this the image they want the public to have of them?

Reactions were fairly immediate. One former supporter said, on an article written by Sam Stanton at the Sacramento Bee

[Name Removed] has posted on the Creative Frontiers Open Group Facebook page that the victims were "Chosen" and put up there intentionally by their parents and others to get Mr. Bob! That is the most ridiculous, immoral, uneducated and uninformed comment I have read yet. I am embarrassed she would say such a ludicrous thing. Shame on her!

Support for Mr. Adams is going to continue to dwindle down to nothing if this kind of behavior is allowed to continue. Ironically the supporter who posted the above comments regarding the children who have "been recruited as victims" claimed earlier in the week:

You know Dan, the law works both ways. If Bob can be put in this ridiculous situation, then there's absolutely no reason why legal action against the Sac Bee and the posters can't be initiated immediately. Just because these people aren't using their real names to post doesn't mean they can't be easily located via an IP address obtained by a subpena served on the Sac Bee. The Bee has allowed, and therefore encouraged, these comments to go on and on. The posters have implied that they have inside information in this situation numerous times to lead readers to believe in Bob's guilt before he was even charged. They have attacked people like me who have simply posted my experience with CFS and my opinion about the situation, to discredit any real insight I might be able to provide. The Sac Bee should be held accountable for being irresponsible, and these yet to be identified individuals should be charged with appropriate crimes they've committed against the individual parents, the parents as a whole, the school, the Adams daughters, and Bob. I believe there was an attorney in Orangevale who posted here a few weeks back who might be willing to take on the case on behalf of those who choose to participate. If not, we'll find another.

I would focus energies on printing hard copies of everything that's been posted Dan, in preparation. Don't bother responding anymore. Let's just take this to the next level and hold them all accountable to get it stopped once and for all.

Of all of the 7 charges, only 2 came after Ms. Merten's complaint (possibly just 1. There is no date on the complaint regarding child, "Jane Doe" that indicates when the report was made.) That's the tricky part when you are trying to bend facts to suit your opinion. Annoying things like dates get in the way. In addition, no where has it ever been posted that Ms. Merten's complaint was "unfounded". Why it wasn't included in the case summary and arrest warrant, we do not know.

Wait, who is discrediting people? People posting here at Doubting CFS? The SacBee posters? Sam Stanton? The Sacramento Bee themselves? What's that saying? "Now that's the pot calling the kettle black."

The day Creative Frontiers School was no more

Imagine yourself in this situation...

You just put in a long day at the office. You get in your car and head to your child's school to pick them up, just like you do every day. Only today, instead of the cars of other parents, you are met with police cruisers blocking the entrance. Your heart starts racing. You immediately think the worst. There was a shooting. Someone died. My child was injured. You ask the officers what is going on, and you get the response of, "the entire school is a crime scene" and you are directed to speak to the chaplains. Your hands are shaking, your heart is beating rapidly in your chest. Panic is an understatement. You NEED to know what is wrong.

When you finally get some answers, you are told to attend a parent meeting that very same evening. You find out that some former employee made some claims of child molestation against the principal. You are angry, deservingly so. Then you see the same ex-employee making comments on TV. You are told by other parents at the school, teachers, and family of the principal that this woman made it up. The anger over the situation you were placed in trumps the true issue at hand, your child's principal was just accused of molesting children in the school over a 15 year period. You have to scramble to find new childcare for the rest of the summer. The school year is starting so you have to find a new elementary school. You don't want to believe the allegations. You put your child in that environment. It MUST be that this employee was lying.

Then you start hearing things that don't make sense. People are talking about building code violations, resume "gaps", agreements with the city that don't seem to exist. You raise your eyebrow, but still give the benefit of the doubt. You read the Department of Social Services reports. You see numerous violations. How did you not know this? That eyebrow raises a little higher. Then comes the criminal charges. You can see, right in front of you that this isn't one former employee. It is a whole lot more. You swallow hard and decide that maybe your first instinct in this matter wasn't the right one. Maybe you were blinded by your anger over the way CHPD closed the school. You could believe that one person might be lying, but 7 different children in the police report...

Unfortunately it seems way too many former CFS parents experienced this exact scenario. Of course no one WANTS to believe Mr. Adams is guilty. But the very real fact is that he very well might be. Certainly there is more going on than a disgruntled ex-employee. Surely it is more than a "witch hunt". And while the CHPD probably could have handled the closure a bit differently and reduced the stress on the parents, children, and teachers, that doesn't mean they are trying to "cover their behinds from being sued". This is not "a repeat of the McMartin case" and neither is every other case of suspected child molestation. That is no better than saying every male principal and teacher MUST be a pedophile just because they work with children and there have been convictions of males working as teachers and principals.

We at Doubting CFS are deeply sorry for anyone who experienced trauma on the day of the CFS closure. I think that CHPD had a tricky situation on their hands. There really was no precedent for this type of situation. I think it could have been handled differently, but I think that they were just trying to do their jobs. They certainly weren't TRYING to traumatize anyone. This is one of those cases where you have to accept what has happened and learn from it. I am positive that the CHPD is not trying to falsify charges just to justify their response for the closure. To assume that is their only motivation is asinine.

Please CFS parents, do not let the gut-wrenching experience you had when you picked up your child blind you to what is right in front of you. We wish you all the best and hope that your children are all adjusting well to their new schools and that you NEVER have to experience anything like this again.

Statutes and victims

One CFS supporter wrote this morning:

So, nothing from Irma's report is credible--she started this firestorm and no records or memories of previous allegations and actions have been located. So now, instead of admitting error which will cause a major lawsuit against the State entities, they are NOW trying to dredge up a prosecution from allegations that weren't acted upon by the police from decades ago just to save their reputation and money while they destroy Mr. Bob, his career, his health, his reputation and his family along with the students, teachers and staff at CFS. And, maybe I'm wrong but I seem to recall that there is a 7 year statute of limitations somewhere written in our State and/or Federal laws--does this not apply only to Mr. Bob?

Well, no, not exactly. CA state law says that there is a 10 limitation from the time of the crime. Additionally, victims coming forward over the age of 18, even if it has been 10 years since the alleged crime took place, have an additional year from the time a police report is filed. This means that a victim of age 3 can file a police report at age 21 and there is 1 year from the time of that report for charges to be filed.

Mr. Bob is not being unduly targeted nor are his alleged crimes outside the CA Penal Code statutes. The CFS Supporters have said over and over again how unfair this all is. How Mr. Bob is a scapegoat for a botched investigation. We have heard the rumors of the City of CH attempting to take over the property for a firehouse. None of this is true. It simply isn't. CHPD conducted a thorough investigation into these allegations and sufficient evidence was found to support an arrest being made. It is easy to criticize the handling of the school closure by CHPD. Why on earth would they take any possible missteps and invite further scrutiny? This case isn't about saving money from a lawsuit against the city, county or state. Its not about saving a reputation. Its certainly not about intentionally and personally ruining Mr. Bob. It is about protecting the children of our city and state from possible harm. Its about giving a voice to the alleged victims and allowing a jury to determine the guilt or innocence of Robert Adams. Robert Adams is entitled to his due process, just as I would hope to be allowed to have my due process.

These statutes are in place to protect the possible defense an alleged criminal may use but also to protect the victims. Many victims of incest or molestation by a family member cannot report them when the crime happens. The psychological and emotional trauma that a victim may experience is enormous and should not be underestimated. The daughter of a pedophile may not understand or may have blocked what her parent did to her. It does not mean he should go unpunished. These victims deserve the vindication that comes with a guilty verdict. After all, their innocence has been taken from them, often their dignity has been stripped. Their voices are all they have left and they deserve to have them heard.

Riddle me this, Batman

If Creative Frontiers is such an awesome and amazing school, how come the grandchildren of Robert Adams go to a public school? Its rather interesting that the Adams daughters would choose free public school over such an acclaimed private school.

Accusations....when are they "false" and when are they "true"

Earlier when reading through some of the comments on the SacBee website I saw remarks about the "false accusations" and "false charges" against Robert Adams. I then visited the CFS Facebook page and even followed a link to an article written by Christian Peet that detailed the "All-New False Case" brought about by DA Scully. And yes, I do read the CFS Facebook page. It is a public page, if they don't want people to read it, then they should set it to private. Reading the CFS Facebook page shouldn't be consider a bad thing. I keep hoping someone will post some accurate information for those families, but alas, no. Posts are removed that aren't glowing and even those pointing out simple inaccuracies are deleted. Including one that simply stated that Mr. Adams was still the current owner of the property Creative Frontiers School resides on. Why would that be information that should be deleted? What are you hiding? Again, confusion follows with posters saying things like "I thought the school was sold to courtneys fiancé?" No reply from the Adams family. Just delete the original post. I fully acknowledge that they could have answered this question via private message, but what about the rest of the followers? Why is that a secret? Why not say, "We sold the business, but Robert Adams still owns the property" Again I ask, why is this a secret?

I've gotten myself way off topic here. Back to the use of the word "false". The supporters of Adams give praise to Mr. Peet. Calling him everything from "amazing" to "refreshing". And yet anything written here as "vile" and "distasteful". How many of these same people have read the other cases that Peet supports? Would they still find him "amazing"? So how does Mr. Peet justify his use of the word "false"? How is that any better than someone who is on the other side of the fence calling them "true"? How is that unbiased?

Accusations are just that...accusations. Charges are just plain old charges. Now, if someone comes out and says, "yeah we made it up" THEN and ONLY then can those accusations be called false.

Many of the CFS supporters are also of the opinion that this blog has bad intentions towards the entire Adams family. Not true. This blog was started ONLY as a means to collect various documents that were easily accessible through making phone calls to public officials and then make those documents easy for anyone questioning CFS to see. Now that these charges have come up, I am much more skeptical of Adams himself, but the intent was never and will never be "hey look at this guy who molests kids...he is guilty...you all see he is guilty right?".

Freedoms, Rights and Responsibilities

When I started more than a decade ago, I did it for my entertainment, to keep friends updated and to learn web design. I never would have thought I would (partially) own a blog that was receiving hundreds of hits daily nationally as far as Vermont. We appreciate you reading our blog, we hope that you are gaining new information from it. With writing comes freedom and responsibility.

I live in the US, in Northern CA to be more precise. I have the freedom of speech. I am able to voice my opinions, regurgitate facts and post public documents. I have the responsibility to be as factual as possible and to protect the privacy of those that I write about. One of the documents received was from the sale of Creative Frontiers from Robert Adams to Zsolt Benedek. You will notice its not posted in our "library". It contained Robert Adams home address and while, yes, it is a public document, ethically it is against what I believe to publish it. I also have the responsibility to refrain from starting riots or inciting violent behaviors. While I have no reason to believe Robert Adams is in danger, it would be irresponsible to post his home address on any site.

The writings of this blog are our opinion based on the factual knowledge we have through public documents, personal experience and media reports. The Sacramento Bee has a disclaimer that reads: "Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee.". Our opinions do not reflect the opinion of the Bee. The articles written in the news sections are factual based on the information available at the time of writing. Our blog posts are also factual based on the information at the time of writing. If you see a factual error, by all means, please let us know so we can correct it.

My freedom of speech allows me to comment on news articles with my opinion. It allows me to blog with my opinion. It also protects me. Men and women die daily for me to keep this right and I will forever be grateful for their sacrifice.

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.

How not to retain your supporters

A CFS supporter posts an innocent comment wishing former CFS children well that are starting at her son's school today. "How sweet of them" you might think. Transition is hard even on the most laid back child. How nice that someone is wishing them through this transition. This should be a sweet, if not mundane post but nothing that should cause conflict, right?

But wait.. John Daley responds with "Yeah I'm sure your just all broken up over it you and your daughter". What the heck?!?! Why are these types of attacks allowed? WHY does the Adams family allow these comments to stay on their site but they delete posts asking questions. Theresa Grable- Del Biaggio did the same thing to another poster and yet, again, nothing was said. Why are supporters allowed to attack other supporters, and more importantly, why are they attacking supporters to begin with?

Well, its actually an easy question to answer.  Brother Dan doesn't like dissenting opinions.  If you are praising CFS, Bob Adams and are assured of innocence, you are worthy of defending.  If you ask questions he doesn't want to answer?  Well, you are free to leave the page. If these questions were related to the allegations, asked for specifics about the crimes, I could very easily see the reluctance to allow that to stay.  After all, that may be privileged information, part of a criminal defense strategy - any number of reasons.  To silence your supporters assumes and sends the message that they are incapable of analyzing situations and forming their own opinions.

We've watched the number of supporters steadily dwindle over the last couple of weeks.  I can only predict it will continue that trend.