Sport Horse Spotlight

Real Estate Spotlight

3255 Davidsonville Rd  Barns

Sale Spotlight

  • Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

George Morris on the SS list

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ynl063w View Post

    Finding yourself in a relationship with someone who falsely accuses you of rape when the relationship goes south is a mistake.

    Again, I don't know if he raped the woman in question or not, and I really didn't care at the time. I was so incredibly relieved to know that he didn't molest children that the details of his consensual relationship with his adult patient didn't matter to me one bit.

    I don't post here much anymore because you are all so goddamn exhausting in finding every single little tiny way to prove that someone is wrong about what is posted, and you all need every single tiny little fucking detail to answer every broad question anyone asks about anything, and it's so incredibly off-putting.

    I provided a real life example of someone who was put on the sexual offender list without involving minors, because someone asked if that was possible. So the answer is yes, that is possible.
    But he would not have been on the sex offenders registry if it had been simply consensual. Lost his license to practice medicine, yes. For a criminal conviction and the sex offender registry requires a crime - some form of non consensual sex.

    Most people here don’t view that as a “tiny fucking detail”.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

      But he would not have been on the sex offenders registry if it had been simply consensual. Lost his license to practice medicine, yes. For a criminal conviction and the sex offender registry requires a crime - some form of non consensual sex.

      Most people here don’t view that as a “tiny fucking detail”.
      It's become clear to me that all of you here on COTH have a way better understanding of the situation that I described as I lived through it 25 years ago, and I clearly handled it in the worst way possible based on all of your feedback. If only I had all of you to rely on to tell me exactly what to do as soon as I received that notification, I would have clearly made a better decision than I did at the time, and I could have made sure that all my neighbors acted in ways that all of you COTH members deemed appropriate. How could we all have been so stupid?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

        But he would not have been on the sex offenders registry if it had been simply consensual. Lost his license to practice medicine, yes. For a criminal conviction and the sex offender registry requires a crime - some form of non consensual sex.

        Most people here don’t view that as a “tiny fucking detail”.
        But how would she have known that? I didn't know the sex offender registry requires an actual criminal conviction--or that misconduct with a patient would not be sufficient-- until you just said it here. It makes sense, but I never thought about it. And I have a law degree and probably 30 years more life experience than that poor poster. Jeez.

        I guess no one will be accusing you and me of being the same person anymore, lol.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

          But how would she have known that? I didn't know the sex offender registry requires an actual criminal conviction until you just said it here. It makes sense, but I never thought about it. And I have a law degree and probably 30 years more life experience than that poor poster. Jeez.

          I guess no one will be accusing you and me of being the same person anymore, lol.
          In California, a person can end up on the sex offender registry for streaking at their High School graduation practice.
          What used to be viewed as a stupid prank is now is now considered ‘indecent exposure’, and carries with it a place on “the list” ... maybe not for life, but still, not a great way to start off adulthood.

          Comment


          • A quick Google search shows that prior to 2006 state sex offender lists were not standardized. So it is possible that a state had something about patients and it seems that it is not always criminal convictions. So I wouldn't discount the story as completely wacky. Twenty or so years ago states were just getting all of the details ironed out. And surely someone in the neighborhood followed up on his story. People were nosey and speculative even before the internet made us all sleuths!



            Indecent exposure of three times will get you on the IL list. Yep know someone whom that happened to. He had three indecent exposure citations for pubic urination. He was an alcoholic who needed help. I can't remember the time frame and think maybe he fought it.

            I doubt one incidence of streaking is enough though.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ynl063w View Post

              It's become clear to me that all of you here on COTH have a way better understanding of the situation that I described as I lived through it 25 years ago, and I clearly handled it in the worst way possible based on all of your feedback. If only I had all of you to rely on to tell me exactly what to do as soon as I received that notification, I would have clearly made a better decision than I did at the time, and I could have made sure that all my neighbors acted in ways that all of you COTH members deemed appropriate. How could we all have been so stupid?
              I apologize. Honestly. I am glad that neither you nor your children were harmed.

              It is more much, much easier to critique from afar.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by roseymare View Post
                A quick Google search shows that prior to 2006 state sex offender lists were not standardized. So it is possible that a state had something about patients and it seems that it is not always criminal convictions. So I wouldn't discount the story as completely wacky. Twenty or so years ago states were just getting all of the details ironed out. And surely someone in the neighborhood followed up on his story. People were nosey and speculative even before the internet made us all sleuths!



                Indecent exposure of three times will get you on the IL list. Yep know someone whom that happened to. He had three indecent exposure citations for pubic urination. He was an alcoholic who needed help. I can't remember the time frame and think maybe he fought it.

                I doubt one incidence of streaking is enough though.
                When I did corrections nursing years ago, there was nurse who began a relationship with an inmate and ended up serving time/on the sex offender registry despite it being consensual. In certain circumstances people are rendered legally unable to consent to sex despite enthusiastic participation, e.g. prison, some types of inpatient mental health settings, etc. She was charged with statutory rape in addition to a few other things that I can't recall at the moment.

                So depending on the setting in which the psychiatrist's relationship began, that might be a possible explanation for charges and his appearance on the registry.


                Comment


                • Originally posted by roseymare View Post

                  Indecent exposure of three times will get you on the IL list. Yep know someone whom that happened to. He had three indecent exposure citations for pubic urination. He was an alcoholic who needed help. I can't remember the time frame and think maybe he fought it.

                  I doubt one incidence of streaking is enough though.
                  I worked with a recovering alcoholic that was on the list for public urination. Apparently he was so drunk, he didn't realize he was peeing against a mostly glass office building and everyone in the offices could see him in all his glory. I don't know if he had priors, but that's the one he told people about as a warning to not get blackout drunk.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ynl063w View Post

                    It's become clear to me that all of you here on COTH have a way better understanding of the situation that I described as I lived through it 25 years ago, and I clearly handled it in the worst way possible based on all of your feedback. If only I had all of you to rely on to tell me exactly what to do as soon as I received that notification, I would have clearly made a better decision than I did at the time, and I could have made sure that all my neighbors acted in ways that all of you COTH members deemed appropriate. How could we all have been so stupid?
                    I want to start of by saying that I'm so sorry for the loss of your brother, ynl063w. I don't believe in any way that he was stupid - he acted like a normal teenager and lost his life in a tragic accident.

                    In regards to your former neighbor on the sex offender registry, I'll be the first to admit that I'm always skeptical of any person who claims to have been placed on the list due to a "scorned ex" or false accusation. I usually try to do my own research on the criminal case that led to their inclusion. However, this is much easier today with online databases like PACER at our fingertips. I don't think you handled it "in the worst way" - there really wasn't any feasible way for you to handle it rather than keeping you and your family's distance from this neighbor.

                    YankeeDuchess I also believe that the neighbor must have been convicted of a crime to be placed on the list - especially if letters were sent to the entire neighborhood to inform them of their arrival. IMO a very important question in this scenario would be "Can a psychiatrist have a truly consensual relationship with a patient?" I am aware of a few cases in which a physician was convicted of criminal sexual misconduct for engaging in a "consensual" relationship with an adult patient. However, most of the cases were far more complicated once you broke the surface (for e.g. there is one case in which a male psychiatrist was accused of increasing the female patient's medication whenever she expressed her concerns about their sexual relationship, offered her $50,000 to not report him, destroyed the phone recordings of their conversations, abused her in his office during their sessions, etc.) IIRC the psychiatrist eventually pled no-contest to second-degree sexual misconduct in 2009 and was placed on the sex offender registry. If you are interested, you can read more about this specific case here: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court...s/1281772.html

                    In other words, I'm aware of dozens of cases in which a physician lost their medical license for engaging in a sexual relationship with a patient. While rare, I am also aware of cases in which physicians (predominantly psychiatrists) were criminally convicted for sexual misconduct for having a "consensual" relationship with a patient.
                    ​​​​

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                      You account of the Lopez case is different from what was reported in newspapers. What is the authority for your statements?
                      So here is where I found similar information: https://www.chron.com/sports/article...vAVSfeCcdKVqZw


                      and here: https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-...81809989757350

                      There's a few others whose previews have similar language but I cannot access as I'm not in the US and many US news sites are blocked for Europeans through GDPR.

                      Apparently this fact is something SS is disputing, though. So it will also come out in the court case.

                      What I'm struggling to understand is why you're picking apart SS ban and suspension statistics? What bearing does it have on the GHM case? ...Why don't YOU go find some information if you're so interested, instead of trashing on people who have actually done some reading? And then by all means share with the class because so far you've contributed like, nothing to this conversation.

                      Comment


                      • Wow three pages analyzing ynl063w’s story from 25 years ago. From the original post we can infer a crime had been committed and the person in question was convicted based on the fact that letters, typically from the State Police (at least where I live), that a convicted sex offender moved into the neighborhood.

                        Did the guy white wash the story? Probably. Does it change the fact that the example was to demonstrate being put on the sex offender list for sex crimes not involving minors? No it does not.

                        It’s really easy now a days to see what crimes can get someone on the sex offender list. In my state any violent sexual crime lands one there. Rape for example. What constitutes rape? Sex with someone who is unable or does not consent. Ability to consent is also linked to the situation ie one’s job. The psychiatrist and patient is a good example. In my line of work being drunk puts a person into the unable to consent category and I have seen people go down for that. As someone else mentioned a nurse working in a prison.

                        Comment


                        • HLMom here is some more reading:

                          https://thinkprogress.org/2-olympic-...-4b1b54b8c1ef/

                          https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/s...safesport.html

                          So, no there's not a lot of published data on the interim suspensions - but I believe that's because that policy is in flux after the Gage suicide (which most people should agree is a good thing?) But it doesn't change the fact that it appears only "permanent" disciplinary action such as a lifetime ban, is what goes to arbitration. I can't speak for the time-limit suspensions that come about post investigation, but it seems they are prioritizing serious/repeat sexual/violent offenders and delegating a lot of the "softer" stuff to the NGBs for at least the time being.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                            That seems a bit harsh (but perhaps you didn't intend it to). Good people tend to trust and give others the benefit of the doubt, and fundamentally that comes from a good heart even if it later seems ill-advised.

                            Today I listened to an NPR podcast about a girl who was sexually assaulted at 13. Every day as she walked to the bus stop, a man who was always loitering around would smile and wave at her, and she waved back. One day, he grabbed her at knifepoint and put his hand in her private area. Decades later, she still blamed herself for being friendly to him.

                            There is something so sad about blaming oneself or others for being kind and trusting.
                            No, I didn't intend for it to come across so harshly, but I did find the use of "LOL" to be a bit cavalier. At the end of the day, it is disturbing to me that we (as a society) can take the word of a charming neighbor over that of the judge or jury who convicted him (public urination arguments aside).

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ynl063w View Post

                              I honestly don't even understand what your post means. What is it about my "experience", "my post", or my "response to anyone else's post" is so "disturbing" to you? I have no idea why God should help me; can you please help me understand what has you so upset about my posts and let me know what I need to do to get God to help me? I feel like I should be scared but I'm not so that might be bad. Should I stay inside if there is a chance of thinderstorms?
                              What I find disturbing is that you take the word of your neighbor who said it was consensual at face value when in fact he had a criminal conviction. And that you repeat it over and over, and use cavalier language like "LOL" when responding to people who are questioning your judgement. I find it further disturbing that in subsequent posts you assert it was a "false accusation" and that you think think that in posting your story you needn't give "every single tiny little f*cking detail" whilst defending someone on the registry. Unless someone has landed themselves on the registry for urinating in public or undressing in a hotel room with the windows open, those details do matter.

                              "The dude seemed genuine and believable" need not apply, as those who abuse others don't generally wave a flag stating they do.

                              I'm sorry if you feel I was being needlessly harsh. The only takeaway I have from your story is that some people are really charming, and that some people believe what they want to believe... not that anyone is being needlessly being placed on the registry.

                              ETA: I am very sorry about the loss of your brother. I missed that last night.

                              Comment


                              • Here's the thing: A one-sided story told by a perp is always going to be whitewashed.

                                DH is forever relating to me stories he read on some board he's on where a guy says he came home early, found his wife/girlfriend in bed with some other dude, and had no idea there was anything wrong and what a bitch she is. I keep pointing out that DH is reading one side of the story and the guy is hardly going to say how wrong he was, is he? I suspect that it the wife/girlfriend told the story, I it would come out very different, not necessarily any more 'right,' but certainly different.

                                The point is, some sort of reality check is always in order when it's a sitch where you're only getting one side of the tale.

                                Having said that, regarding the post by ynl063w, if the guy had a relationship with an adult woman that resulted in being on the sex offender list, it doesn't automatically mean that he was a danger to any of the neighborhood children. But sex offenders are successful because they are so believable. They are the nice guys, who would never... (fill in the blank). And this guy was a psychiatrist who would have known exactly the correct things to say to get people to believe him, so it's not surprising they all did.

                                I would like to think we're all so much smarter now, but then there's Tom Navarro, who still has his thriving business.

                                Check out the sex offender registry for your zipcode. I suspect you too will find at least a few folks living within a 5-mile radius of you, maybe even someone you know, who you would have never suspected.

                                Comment


                                • I think slamming a poster for telling a story from 25 years ago is a bit much. ynl063w was merely posting about something and what her thought process was AT THAT TIME. I by no means would assume she feels the same today nor would I assume she would have the same reaction today.

                                  I mean really, think back 25 years and tell me your reaction and thought process would be the same as it is today on any given situation in your life.

                                  We have heard time and again on this thread about what people thought as they were being groomed or watching someone be groomed and what they now know to be true.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                                    I do not know for a fact that FiSk123 is female. It is my inference that FiSk123 is female, mostly based on her writing style. Why, in your mind, does it matter?

                                    The pronoun “they” is now used for people who consider themselves non-binary. If you don’t know for a fact that FiSk123 identifies as non-binary, perhaps you should refer to her as he/she/they.
                                    "They" is also commonly used as an indefinite pronoun, when the individual/individuals is not known. Loosen up, fer cryin out loud. There's more than enough to get your knickers in a twist about, without hunting for material.
                                    "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

                                    ...just settin' on the Group W bench.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                                      Safe Sport/JAMS should fix that. They are the ones appealing. They should make every effort. Obviously it’s not that important to them.
                                      Circling back to the 45 days for arbitration. Take RG's case as an example. According to the USEF SafeSport Sanctions list, he was banned on 2/1/2019. His arbitration hearing was scheduled for the week of July 12 and was postponed. There are 131 days between the initial report of the ban and his death. I have no information on this case, but I would assume there were delays due to scheduling and/or other issues between the lawyers & arbitrator.

                                      The ones appealing are the accused. You would think they would want the hearing scheduled as soon as possible. They should be prepared to defend themselves since they know about the charges, investigation, etc. After seeing the witness and evidence list, they may want additional time, but each day delayed is another day out of the horseshow world and another day your life and reputation is "ruined".

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by Keep it Simple View Post

                                        Circling back to the 45 days for arbitration. Take RG's case as an example. According to the USEF SafeSport Sanctions list, he was banned on 2/1/2019. His arbitration hearing was scheduled for the week of July 12 and was postponed. There are 131 days between the initial report of the ban and his death. I have no information on this case, but I would assume there were delays due to scheduling and/or other issues between the lawyers & arbitrator.

                                        The ones appealing are the accused. You would think they would want the hearing scheduled as soon as possible. They should be prepared to defend themselves since they know about the charges, investigation, etc. After seeing the witness and evidence list, they may want additional time, but each day delayed is another day out of the horseshow world and another day your life and reputation is "ruined".
                                        With this specific case the delay (I think) was on the end of Safe Sport as they had received additional complaints after the ban. Also, it was stated that there was a criminal investigation being initiated.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by specifiedcupcake View Post

                                          What I'm struggling to understand is why you're picking apart SS ban and suspension statistics? What bearing does it have on the GHM case? ...Why don't YOU go find some information if you're so interested, instead of trashing on people who have actually done some reading? And then by all means share with the class because so far you've contributed like, nothing to this conversation.
                                          Thanks for saying what I've been thinking.

                                          A friend shared this on Facebook this morning and it really made me think of the way this thread has been going.

                                          How Social Media Works

                                          Me: "I prefer mangoes to oranges..."

                                          Random Person: "So basically what you're saying is that you hate oranges? You also failed to mention pineapples, bananas, and grapefruits. Educate yourself."



                                          "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything
                                          that's even remotely true."

                                          Homer Simpson

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X