MK forum

Isn't there an implied disclaimer for this list? If you read the list in the context of this entire site, isn't there really an implied asterisk by the names on the list?

Does the list really communicate that all said persons are guilty as accused?

Is it libel to maintain a list of alleged abusers? Isn't maintaining a list akin to stating that "Person X" has been accused by somebody of "Action Y". That Person X has been accused of Action Y is a proovable fact, even if Person X never engaged in Action Y. (i.e., Can we sue news anchors for defamation when they say "Person B has been accused of Action Z by an anonymous person?")

While on the one hand it kind of makes sense that names should not be added to the list based on information from anonymous posters (i.e., willy nilly)...on the other hand, the audience of this site understands from the context, that certain names have been added based on information provided by anonymous posters - as such, the credibility of the information is already limited by the context. It is a list, not necessarily of people have "have done x,y, or z", but who have been "accused of doing x,y, or z".

But, we certainly don't want to wait until Uncle John Doe has been fully investigated, if ever, to warn other people that Uncle has been identified by an anonymous person as having engaged in a certain activity. Shouldn't certain protections be sought just "in case" the information is true?

And, just to clarify, if Anonymous Person A lies and says that Uncle John Doe has abused him and no such abuse has occurred, and then the Maintainer of List ads Uncles name to the list...I certainly don't think it is Maintainer of List that can be successfully sued. If anybody, it would be Anonymous Person A. Maintainer of List is not opining on or confirming the accuracy of the underlying information.

Just some thoughts.

a "law suit" is not the same thing as a "successful lawsuit".

truth is generally an affirmative defense.

falsity is often the burden of the plaintiff.

plaintiff often must prove negligence or malice.

having said that, i agree that there is risk of legal liability depending on what is stated, the context in which it is stated, the truth of what is stated, and the ability to prove falsity or truthfulness, depending on the jurisdiction and burden of proof.

if you want to save yourself from being sued, maybe refrain from asserting certain facts, even if true. if you want to protect others, weigh the risk.

Hello, everyone. I missed all the posts back and forth ... I was away from a computer all last night and this morning. But I am back now, and have read through all of it.

I do not consider myself to be a brave person, or a confrontational person. I am basically a fearful MK, conditioned to be intimidated by those in authority.

I am involved in this struggle as an advocate for hurting MKs. Everything I have done or posted has been with MKs in mind. We never had a voice when we were young. Some of us still haven't found our voices. I am one, I guess, who tries to raise my timid voice, but I am not a fighter. Not really.

I hurt for all who are hurting. That includes those who are shocked and devastated by the type of news that no one - no one - ever wants to hear.

I have asked Bonnie to remove my last post with three new names listed.

It has been done.

If child molesters are so “good” at what they do, what steps can the faith community take to ensure that they don’t succeed? Learning how offenders think and act is the first step in developing protective antennas, which can keep our community safe from those who pose a risk to our little ones. This post will examine five basic behavioral characteristics of child sexual offenders that must be understood if we are committed to making the faith community a safe community.

1. Offenders have many victims.

One study indicates that child molesters who sexually victimize females outside of the home averaged approximately 20 different victims. That same study found that child molesters who sexually victimize males outside of the home averaged approximately 150 different victims!

The importance of these startling statistics is to expose the reality that those who sexually victimize children likely have victimized dozens of other children during their lifetime. Not only does this open our eyes to the prevalence of this tragic epidemic, but it should also prepare us in how to respond to individuals within our faith community who get “caught” for engaging in criminal behavior against a child, demonstrate outward remorse (usually by a lot of tears), and beg for “grace,” claiming that this was the only child they had ever victimized. Based upon these statistics, the offender is most likely lying, which means they are continuing to deceive in order to reestablish trust and access to our children.

2. Offenders can be the most unsuspecting people.

Unfortunately, many in our faith community still believe that they can spot a child molester simply by appearance. Parents are most often on the lookout for the “creepy looking” guy who hangs out at the park or outside of the school. First, all adults should be concerned and take action to protect children when they see such a person. However, do not allow that limited stereotype to identify those in our community who may be a danger to our children.

When selecting a jury, I often asked, “Can you tell me what a burglar looks like?” This question often helped jurors understand that child molesters cannot be identified by appearance or social status. In my years as a child sexual abuse prosecutor, I prosecuted physicians, computer programmers, financial advisors, teachers, and even a child sexual abuse investigator! As a faith community, our protective antennas should be focused on behavior, not looks or economic status.

3. Offenders are not strangers.

Another unfortunate stereotype is that most offenders are strangers to the child. Again, the faith community must be vigilant in protecting our children from interacting with strangers. However, it is common knowledge that most children are not sexually victimized by strangers. In fact, one study found that only 10 percent of child molesters molest children that they don’t know.

The faith community must come to terms with the heartbreaking reality that those who pose the greatest risk to our children are within our families, churches, and circle of friends. Our protective antennas must always be on alert, especially when our children are around those that they know and trust.

4. Offenders often prey upon trusting and vulnerable young people.

In order to sexually victimize a child, an offender will first have to gain access to the child. As a result, offenders spend much time planning and executing what is commonly known as the “grooming” process. This is the process in which the offender gains access to the child in order to develop a trusting and/or authoritative relationship. Once such a relationship has been created, the perpetrator is often free to abuse. Access to such children is obtained by:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1) <!--[endif]-->The already-existing position of the offender to the child or the child’s family (this can include family members, friends, coaches, youth pastors, etc.), or

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2) <!--[endif]-->The intentionally created position by the offender who targets a child and begins to lavish that child with attention, gifts, and “love” (this can include the person who takes an interest in a troubled child, a child from a broken home, or one who has similar interests).

Both categories of access assist offenders in targeting vulnerable children—those who trust and obey the offender. The faith community must keep its antennas up to make sure that children who fall into both categories are carefully watched and protected. We must be vigilant in protecting all children.

5. Offenders are often attracted to the faith community.

“
I considered church people easy to fool . . . they have a trust that comes from being Christians. They tend to be better folks all around and seem to want to believe in the good that exists in people. I think they want to believe in people. And because of that, you can easily convince, with or without convincing words.
”
–Convicted child molester (Salter)

Though there are many reasons why those who want to hurt our children target the faith community, I want to focus on two that I believe to be fundamental:

Churches are very trusting.

Not long ago, I was thinking about the time when we had just moved to an area and were looking for a church. At that time, our eldest child was an infant, and at each visiting church we dropped her off at the church nursery. Yes, I entrusted my child into the care of a complete stranger at a strange new place. Could you imagine walking into Wal-Mart and handing your child into the care of the greeter while you shopped? Though I don’t think I would be so careless today, the reason I did not think much about it then was that it was a church . . . and I “trusted” those at a church.

This same naïveté is why offenders flock to the faith community. There is no other environment where they can obtain access to so many children so quickly and nobody seems to be concerned. The faith community must keep its antennas up to make sure that clear policies are in place that prohibits others from exploiting the trust that so often accompanies Christian fellowship. We could all probably benefit from following the advice of former President Ronald Reagan when he said, “Trust, but verify.”

Churches are always in need of volunteers.

How many churches can you think of that are not in need of volunteers to help out with our children and young people (e.g., nursery, youth group, vacation Bible school, etc.)? Many offenders have grown up in the faith community and are well aware of this constant need for assistance. They will always use this need to their advantage to gain access to our children. The faith community must keep its antennas up by developing ways to carefully screen those who volunteer, while also putting up accountability and monitoring safeguards.

There are many other behavioral characteristics of child sexual abuse offenders that we must learn about if we are going to be proactive and successful in protecting our little ones. A great resource to help you further learn the manner in which these individuals think and act is a book by clinical psychologist Anna Salter, titled, Predators, Pedophiles, Rapitsts, and Other Sex Offenders: Who They Are, How They Operate, and How Can We Protect Ourselves and Our Children. Every parent and pastor should read this book. That said, the characteristics provided above are a starting point for the faith community to study and consider as we prayerfully seek God’s strength and wisdom in keeping our protective antennas up and active.

Thank you, Nate, for your courage to come on and post your thoughts. I, too, have expressed my displeasure at the ease of which anyone may add a name to the list. I must add the words "disgust and distain" to displeasure. I knew Bob Garland for about 25 years, and if there is any one word that I would use to describe him, it would be integrity. I never saw him behave in an inappropriate manner around the opposite sex.

In the judicial system in the United States, the accused is deemed innocent until proven guilty. He may chose a trial by judge or by his peers, and they determine guilt or innocence. Here in these forums, those named for abuse are automatically deemed guilty until proven inoocent. There are three names on the list: Rich Hine, Bob Fisher and Terri McCall. These three people either confessed or were confronted, and all three were dismissed from Tambo and from NTM. Whether it was handled correctly or not, these three recognized their abuse and were dealt with according to the measures in place at that time. These three cases to me, are different than someone just adding a name to the list. They were confronted and dealt with - no cover up, no explanation, just OUT. Did NTM fail in reporting these incidences to the authorites? Apparently so. It is up to the authorities to deal with each case individually.

Nate, you mentioned the prestige of boarding schools in the 60s and 70s. That continued on in Tambo through the 80s and 90s as many of the Taiwanese in Santa Cruz wanted their children to have a quality Tambo education. But, there is another factor that you failed to mention. In the early days, parents were ill equipped to home school. There didn't exist the A Beka program. Not sure exactly when it was made available, but there was a scarcity of resources for parents who wished to home schoo.

Yes, there was a climate that parents had the ministry of the tribal people to consider. But also, parents normally did not have the training to educate their children. And in many cases, not always obviously, parents did not provide the proper setting for the best learning to take place. Children need structure, and generally speaking, parents tend to be very lax and do not provide that structure. So, in several cases, students entered the boarding school scene with major deficiencies and gaps in their learning. It was up to the teacher then to discover those gaps, and it required extra effort on the teacher's part to bring the student up to grade level. Another deficiency in home schooling in the tribal setting is that often home schooled children were unable to socially relate to their peers. Not always, but it happened all to frequently.

In the US, many churches have home schooling support groups where children come together for certain subjects and/or activities, helping them to relate to others and providing special instruction in certain areas. As missionaries of NTM served in remote locations, there did not exist that support base.

Regarding those who moderate this forum site, as Nate has pointed out, "Ignoramce is no excuse in sight of the law." No claims of "I did not know" will fly in the face of the judicial system.

I support my friend Nate Garland and my good late friend, Bob Garland. When you have proof of his culpabilty, come back to me. Let me see it, and let me hear in a court of law, "Guilty as charged" Then, and only then, will I believe this of Bob Garland.

My family was fortunate to spend two weeks on the Uqui base helping out another missionary family and we really enjoyed the time we had getting to know Bob and Mary. I was heartsick when I saw his name added. When my husband addressed the field committee with his concerns about the overuse of spanking at Tambo, Bob was the first one to show concern and want to set policies in place to protect the kids. I do think we need to be careful about adding a name to "the list". Thank you Nate for your letter in defense of your Dad and please give your Mom a hug for me next time you see her.

Pedophilia is a crime not just a sin. It took this forum to get this far with the perpetrators. I do not know who is guilty or not but this mess has occurred because New Tribes Mission did NOT do the right thing, not because of this forum. Lots of people were hurt because of the sin and crime committed by these sin sick people. I think New Tribes Mission needs to be confronted not just the contributors of this forum. Had it not been for the collusion and cover up of New Tribes Mission this new technology would not have been needed. It is just like the discovery of DNA, criminals can no longer hide from their crimes, that is indeed a very good thing. New Tribes Mission is riddled with wrong doing (sin) and they are the ones that need to stop this whole affair. They hold the balance of power not this forum. Too bad there wasn't as much outcry against New Tribes Mission as there seems to be about the exposure of them. Full stop.

Scenario:

I hear from an anonymous source that the guy who lives at 100 East Main Street molested my best friend's daughter. Now, my neighbor informs me that the guy who lives at 100 Main Street is coming over to babysit her children and house sit for a few days.

Assuming that I have no idea whether the allegations are true or not, do I:

(1) inform the neighbor of the anonymous allegation so that she can take whatever precautions she deems necessary;
(2) wait until the guy at 100 Main Street is investigated to inform my neighbor;
(3) do nothing at all.

If you were the neighbor hiring the babysitter, would you want to be told of the uncorroborated allegation or not? If told, would it affect your hiring decision?

Thai MK,

My post somehow disappeared when I went to post....strange.

So, here it is again.
I would choose Option 4: not on your list.

4) You tell the the guy, "Hey Mr. Plutocratus, you know you are under investigation, right? Well, if you take this babysitting job I am going to mention this to Miss Venus because, as you know, this is not a good time for you to be taking this job." That way you leave it up to him to out himself or not.

Amazon Man, interesting as I just responded to Thai MK, and my post got lost somewhere in cyberspace. Are we being singled, or doubled out?