I, Anonymous

You're Dating a Child Molester


For once I want to be the one saying "fake". Not because I don't believe it, but because it might help me keep a shred of faith in humanity.
He probably didn't go to prison because there isn't enough evidence, which is EXACTLY the way things should work. You sound a bit "unhenged". Perhaps with therapy, you'll get over your rape delusions.
This one's a bit of a downer.
Your daughter's statements to police about what happen would have been sufficient to get this guy locked up and eventually convicted.

What happened?
You had recorded evidence of sexual crimes against children, and they refused that as evidence?

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit.
This is one instance where I support the naming of names.
Oh my holy fuck.

I think this is directed to me.

@4 & 5 - whether or not any particular bit of evidence is admissable in any particular case is incredibly dependent on the circumstances of that case. We simply don't have enough information to know if that's bullshit or not. And in a situation like this (the unwitting beard's situation, that is), I'd say better safe than sorry. Take the (possibly crazy) ex-wife's advice: RUN.
You mentioned a video recorder in your rant but rather chose to use "unadmissable audio" instead?
Whatever the truth is, 007 you are not.
@5, not necessarily. In many states it is illegal to record someone without their knowledge. As a result, any video or audio recording performed without the knowledge of the person being recorded is inadmissible in any court of a state that has such a law.
And usually, @10, while that *may* be the law, the evidence is still admitted by the judge. Read the papers sometime.

Fact is, nothing adds up in this I, Anon. *IF* (and that's a big if) this isn't just some random fiction ("fake"), than there was no evidence and the woman is bat-shit-crazy.

Like it or not, bat-shit-crazy women accuse men of this sort of thing all the time.

It's a control issue.
Arthur Zifferelli, are you sure you're not the despicable child-rapist? You're a bit too blase and contrarian about this whole thing.

@11 MRA much? This may be fake, but to automatically assume that is a shit move. She is writing anonymously anyway, so fuck off.
Fact: Cops *LOVE* to bust "child molesters" on the THINNEST of evidence.

Fact: The cops were not interested.

What can one conclude from this? There was no real evidence that any crime had been commited.
Fact: The only people who defend child molesters are molesters themselves.

What can one conclude from this?

Arthur Zifferelli is a child molester.
Fact: The only people who blame women and defend child molesters are molesters and trolls.

What can one conclude from this? Arthur Zifferelli is a child molester troll.
@ #1, faith in humanity? Better RUN!
@15 There is *NO* proof that met the exceptionally LOW BAR of Law Enforcement, thus there is *NO* proof that any child molestation took place.

Pull your head out of your ass.
@Arthur: it's not about law enforcement or cops once it gets to being admissible or not (you keep bringing them up, and I'm not sure why).

It's up to a judge whether or not evidence is presented at trial, and a lot of judges follow the law (believe it or not). It's illegal to record people in private without their knowledge and consent. Any good lawyer could get that evidence tossed out, especially with a judge that followed the law to the letter. When evidence is illegally obtained, it is the job of the judge to disallow it. That's the justice system; it's quite plausible.

Maybe there wasn't enough evidence to formally prosecute him, but the fact that you seem to be defending the (maybe) chi-mo and accusing Anon of being a crazy liar (which you have equally insufficient evidence to do so) is making you look like quite the asshole.
Also, it's not a "low bar" of Law Enforcement (why is that capitalized? Law enforcement is not a branch of government) to convict someone of a heinous crime such as child rape. Those kinds of felonies require strong and sufficient evidence ("beyond a reasonable doubt" sound familiar?). If the biggest piece of evidence was found inadmissible, it would be hard to reach that bar, and the guilty party may go free. Thus, it is easy to see how Anon might not be lying in this situation.
Wow, everyone is all ready to convict based on the single source that apperently was not enough for LE to make an arrest... Amazing.
Did I say I was "ready to convict"? Nope. Just saying that there isn't enough evidence either way, especially from this one letter, and *you're* the one who was ready to call her a liar with rape delusions. In any case, why was rushing to defend the could-be child molester your first reaction?

If anyone's jumping to conclusions, Arthur, it's you.
So, requireing actual real EVIDENCE before branding someone a criminal is no longer the rule?

All I'm saying is that there are a lot of assumptions being made considering that Law Enforcement didn't think there was enough evidence of a crime to pursue it.

And "Arthur the Molestor", your pathetic patter ads nothing to the conversation.
In any case, why was rushing to defend the could-be child molester your first reaction?

Never did I do that, and without any evidence *EVERYONE* could be considered a "could-be child molester", and *you* have already assumed that I, Anon both is credible, and does not have any other axes to grind.

What I *DID* do was question why this charge should be taken seriously when (as the I, Anon herself told us) not enough evidence to even interest Law Enforcement? Suggests to be that no crime was committed. This has NOTHING to do with “child molestation”, not one single thing.

It's easy to make an accusation even when there is (as the I, Anon herself told us) not enough evidence to even interest Law Enforcement.
I work with child sexual abuse victims and you wouldn't believe the amount of cases that are thrown out (even after a child graphically discloses) because there "is not enough evidence". While most of us would love to live in the warm, disillusioned cocoon that child molesters are aggressively prosecuted to the fullest extent, this is not the case. Over 90% of cases have no physical evidence (this is NOT just like what you see on tv, folks) and therefore becomes a case of he said/she said. Unfortunately, offenders many times have more rights than their victims.

This letter, although disturbing, is all too familiar. In fact, I hear situations like this on a daily basis. Although the system may fail child abuse victims, we as a society can make a commitment to protect and support these children and their families. Encourage stricter laws and raise awareness about the prevalence of this issue.
Anon, if you've already been labeled the crazy ex, what do you have to lose in sending this, with your real name, to the new lady? Even if she doesn't listen, you did your due diligence. You could be protecting someone else's child. Consider it.
Children are easily manipulated, especially when a parent or other "authority figure" has an axe to grind.

As an example the bullshit in Wenatchee in the mid-1990's.

In 1998, Dr. Phillip Esplin, a forensic psychologist for the National Institutes of Health's Child Witness Project said that "Wenatchee may be the worst example ever of mental health services being abused by a state ... to control and manage children who have been frightened and coerced into falsely accusing their parents and neighbors of the most heinous of crimes."
Arthur Zifferelli -

You keep saying that the police were supposed to charge the supposed molester. It is not the police departments job to charge someone for a crime commited. That is the task of the courts. The police gather all the evidence that they can find and turn that over to the D.A. and judges for them to sort through and find what is valid/legal, not the police. I'm begining to wonder if maybe you're the one that I,Anon maybe talking about since you're so sure to try and convince everyone reading that she's bat shit crazy and there wasn't any evidence for the police to find (or that it's the police's responsibility to charge a criminal of a crime)
Please be sure to get all your facts figured out before commenting on something like this because it does tend to make you look like the possible guilty party.
@2 Do you think a trip to Stonehenge will "rehenge" someone who is "unhenged"? Or perhaps a small replica (a la Spinal Tap) would work?
STOP TALKING ABOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT. They have nothing to do with this. You are giving me no new information. I know all about false allegations of child abuse, interrogation techniques, all that shit. Never have I said the child was for sure molested, nor that this guy deserves the charges immediately.

You're the one, though, who immediately labeled *her* a crazy liar. And that's shitty of you. If anything, you could say "well, we don't know who's telling the truth," and that would be true, and I wouldn't be persistent about responding to your inane comments which have less than a basic level of understanding of courts and child abuse.

Arthur, learn how the justice system works and then get back to me. "Law Enforcement," whatever you mean by that, does not make decisions on whether or not evidence is let in. They do not get to arraign people formally in court. They do not prosecute people. They make arrests, (and it sounds like they did in this case) and then it's up to the judge what goes to trial. Do you understand that? It doesn't sound like it.
Read 25's comment. Maybe that'll make more sense.

This is all we know: this man has been accused of child molestation by his ex-wife. Maybe it's a lie. Maybe she really did have solid evidence that was thrown out by a stringent judge (actual REAL evidence does get thrown out--because it has not been obtained legally). It is important that you know that her story is not unbelievable, which you seem to think is the case.

That's all we know. And you have already taken to saying it did not happen.
Lmao... illegally gained evidence isnt admissible when the police or gov. violate your civil rights. Not when a citizen does such.
Looks like someone misplaced their MALT LIQUOR and piles of COCAINE
I've got PLENTY of MALT LIQUOR and piles of COCAINE, I'm just not going to share with asshats that like to RAILROAD people with "hearsay" but not real evidence.
If this is all true, this ain't the forum for it. Ovary up and talk to the woman in question.
I have no idea if the charges are true or not. If there is a sexual assault protection order in place, it bolsters the accusation.

Yes, in many states if the person being recorded does not give consent, then the tapes can't be used. The alleged pictures could go either way. I don't know about the "up the skirt" pictures, but taking pictures of young girls in bathing suits is not conclusive. It could be spun as being artistic. We don't know what the child said or didn't say.

I can't say the person accused is guilty. I also can't say that the accuser is crazy or vindictive. There simply isn't enough evidence on either side.
@26 Slander/Libel lawsuit for one. If the man was never convicted, and you call him such, you definitively open yourself up to those charges. If you happen to lose, you can lose your children to the other parent...you know, the one that you are afraid is the molester. She has a lot to lose from it.

And A.Z. your entire argument is based on the idea that all criminals who commit a crime go to jail when that is largely not the case.

"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -Benjamin Franklin speaking of Voltaire's Maxim.

That is largely how our justice system was designed. Guilty people get off a large portion of the time.

This guy sounds like a crumb if he already has an assault conviction/order on his record. Seems like they could have used that as leverage.

Teen Prostitution
Gang Used Social Media Sites to Identify Potential Victims

It’s yet another reason why parents need to keep a close eye on their kids’ involvement with social networking websites—during a three-year period ending in March 2012, members of a violent Virginia street gang used some of these websites to recruit vulnerable high-school age girls to work in their prostitution business.

After a multi-agency state and federal investigation, all five defendants pleaded guilty to various federal charges related to the sex trafficking conspiracy. The leader of the gang—27-year-old Justin Strom—was just sentenced on September 14 to 40 years in prison, while the sentences handed down for the other four defendants totaled 53 years.

If this audio recording is so damning, why not just send it to the new wife? Anonymously publishing inflammatory crap like this only makes you sound like a potential nutcase.
What is with all the horrifyingly negative comments to this post? Why are you so convinced that this I anonymous writer, who is sharing her pain, is a fake? You've obviously never been through the court system as a victim. I have. It sucks. I agree that there should be legal protections in place to prevent false accusations and ensure a fair trial, but so many times those legal protections turn life into living hell for victims who end up feeling like they are on trial as the defense tries to prove that victims are lying. Do you know what it's like to share one of your most horrifying memories to complete strangers and have someone try and pick it apart to make you seem incompetent, lying or both? Our court system is NOT like law & order people. Prosecutors are so busy that they don't have time to meet with the victims more than once or twice before trial- and there is almost no trial prep. Children who have been that traumatized often don't take the stand because it's deemed irrecoverably traumatic for them. So yeah, her story is totally plausible. And you people are assholes for hearing this story without compassion and adding to the hurt and pain she's gone through.
It's pretty easy for a judge to dismiss an audio recording made without a warrant by a private citizen without that person's knowledge or consent. Doesn't mean the guy ain't a needed killin class bastid though.
And usually, @10, while that *may* be the law, the evidence is still admitted by the judge.

Wow. You are really tremendously stupid. No wonder you're also a fucking scumbag troll.

P.S. Kill yourself.
If I've learned anything from this post, it's to avoid Arthur Zifferelli like the plague.
Arthur Zifferelli - poor dear thinks people commenting on a blog post from an anonymous source is the same thing as 'railroading' and 'convicting'. Why are child molesters so sensitive?
Sounds like a crazy ex-wife to me!
Arthur's not a chi-mo, I don't think; he just does not know what he's talking about and isn't mature enough to admit it ("sorry guys; I don't get how the legal system works, I've been talking out of my ass" would suffice). He also probably thinks tons of women lie about getting raped.

@46: Sounds like you haven't read any of the comments, or live in the real world.

People like to live in this nice world where everything turns out how it should and we have a flawless justice system and that it's easy to convict a child rapist/adult rapist/murderer, even. Not so. We live in a great country because it is difficult to do so; it ensures that very few innocent people are enslaved by the state. It also means that some guilty go free. Personally, that's the way I like it.
@35, bleedingheartlibertarian is probably the most correct one on this forum though. She needs to speak up non-anonymously, unless she fears some kind of terrible retribution.
Those of you who don't read the unregistered comments may have missed @7:

>>> Oh my holy fuck. I think this is directed to me.>>>

So maybe the LW knew that the relevant person likes to read the Stranger, and has in fact conveyed the information appropriately.

Dear @7, if you think this may apply to you, you should at the very least speak to your daughter(s) and explain that if anyone (stress anyone, even Their-Favorite-Teacher, even My-New-Boyfriend) touches them inappropriately, they should let you know as soon as possible.
@ #7 -- of COURSE this is about you, you sick fuck. She sent you the link for a reason, didn't she?

@ #25 So utterly depressing........
@10: Yes, and there are other weird issues and corner-cases -- like in some cases recording video is legal, but audio is not.
At least in California, even an illegally obtained recording may be admissible in court if the recording was made by a victim of violence for the purposes of assisting police.

The Mel Gibson scandal a couple of years ago illustrates an example: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/16/…

I have to believe the only way the recording doesn't come in is if it is of such horrible quality that it is simply not possible to discern what is happening e.g. nobody speaks and/or the corroborating testimony of the mother and/or daughter is deemed unreliable. If, for example, the mother is crazy, has previously leveled unsubstantiated charges, there is evidence the girl is being manipulated into testifying etc etc.

So no, not enough information to know. But I'm skeptical about such a recording being kept out.
Oh, what, sometimes people make questionable decisions and say inconsistent things when they're deeply traumatized?

But no, from your armchairs, FAAAAAAKE HURR DURR.
I feel for the little girl. If this is to be believed, her father is a monster. But i question the mother too. Why was there video and audio being recorded while it was happening instead of STOPPING it from happening?!?!
@7: Oh lawl. Fake ^ 2.
Back to the "bright, flashing neon warning," any woman who entertains dating someone who tells her about an ex in disparaging terms, not being married- but has divorce papers (love that one), and an alleged "child molestation," is probably too dim to see that warning sign. Too bad too!

I know this case. Please take if from someone who was also involved with this man, you don't want to go there. This story is true. I direct this only to the woman who is dating this man.
Back to the "bright, flashing neon warning," any woman who entertains dating someone who tells her about an ex in disparaging terms, not being married- but has divorce papers (love that one), and an alleged "child molestation," is probably too dim to see that warning sign. Too bad too!

I know this case. Please take if from someone who was also involved with this man, you don't want to go there. This story is true. I direct this only to the woman who is dating this man.
"I know this case. Please take if from someone who was also involved with this man, you don't want to go there. This story is true. I direct this only to the woman who is dating this man."

Man, this chain of fake is too much. What is it, that people always have to jump into these Anons and add "I KNOW THE PEOPLE INVOLVED" without adding any insight at all? It doesn't make it more real, y'know.
The I, Anon is probably a man hating newly minted lesbian. They are well known to hate all men for made up reasons.
regarding 59, ...Now that AZ has blatantly admitted to being a sexist a**hole, we can all get on with our lives.
Oh, Arthur- you disappoint me.
I much prefer the MALT LIQUOR and COCAINE comments.
59: You've collected indisputable evidence of this, I assume. Otherwise imagine what a dimwitted hypocrite you'd look like!
Arthur Zifferelli has officially jumped the shark.
@ 58, I don't give a rip what you think and I don't have to prove anything to you. The message was not for you, I do believe in sisters warning one another, however. That, I care about. If it's enough to put even a tiny amount of doubt in her head and make her just a little more aware then that's all that matters. She makes her own decisions.

In fact, your answer makes me think you're him.
You people make me sick. That you're rallying to call this woman crazy and defend an alleged child molester is exactly why this crime so often flies under the radar. Rape kills, and just because you don't want to admit it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I call bullshit on YOU.