Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Current Events > Crimes in the News

Notices

Crimes in the News Read and comment about current crimes committed. Remember the copyright laws when posting news stories!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #126  
Old 05-02-2008, 04:59 PM
adnoid's Avatar
adnoid adnoid is offline
I'm in it for the tacos.
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Up on the A1, by Scotch Corner
Posts: 16,158
We want those.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post
Here's the link to the article, Adnoid:
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/app...NEWS/804090361

Second paragraph:<snipped for space>
Thank you - I am going to read the article now. I will not be premature in my reactions, I'd like to finish the whole thing and perhaps do some additional reading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post
...Adnoid, I just find it curious how I'm the only one you jumped on for propogating ad hominem arguments. I mean, one poster even said she wished Judi Hill death and not a peep. Why?
I choose the posts I find interesting to respond to. I don't mean to jump on you personally, but I did want to discuss the points you raised.

Anyway, I'm not picking on just you, southcitymom is next.
__________________
Μολὼν λαβέ



Email me
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:01 PM
Floh Floh is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by adnoid View Post
Thank you - I am going to read the article now. I will not be premature in my reactions, I'd like to finish the whole thing and perhaps do some additional reading.



I choose the posts I find interesting to respond to. I don't mean to jump on you personally, but I did want to discuss the points you raised.

Anyway, I'm not picking on just you, southcitymom is next.
Pick me! pick meeeeeeeeeeeee!
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:04 PM
adnoid's Avatar
adnoid adnoid is offline
I'm in it for the tacos.
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Up on the A1, by Scotch Corner
Posts: 16,158
We want those.

Quote:
Originally Posted by southcitymom View Post
I don't think all criminal attorneys are pedophiles.
Ah, the good old four term fallacy:

All rivers have banks
All banks have money
Therefore all rivers have money

I believe Amraann was using "defend" to mean "advocate and advance the practice of" rather than "provide legal counsel". Two concepts expressed by a single word.
__________________
Μολὼν λαβέ



Email me
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:06 PM
RWill1974 RWill1974 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amraann View Post
ANYONE who advocates child porn needs to just die.
And if her relatives are here then I certainly HOPE they have the good sense to disown her and report her to Authorities..

IMO anyone aware if child porn and does nothing is as guilty as the one looking or taking the pictures.
The idea that someone just sent this guy a attachment of child porn is absolutely ridiculous!!!
Sicko's into to that type of thing stick together they do not go out and solicit others.
They do not send emails en mass to strangers.. That would make them to easy to catch and they know it.


What side of her story do I need to know??
She knew this PIG was looking at child porn and she wanted to not report him???
Even her own employee, who was there, disagreed!!! I may not know her but her employee does and she was there and saw it and felt the need to call the police.
They fired her for reporting a clearly illegal activity?!?!?!
If more people where like her rather then her idiot boss the world would be a safer place ..
And I would rather my taxes pay some crack whore food stamps then see them fund some sicko looking at child porn on my tax dollars.
There is simply NO defense that makes it OK in any situation to sit back and let someone look at child porn.. NONE!
If you do not do something to stop it then your as bad as the pedophile.

BTW if your or someone else here were related to this moron I hope that you disown her and fight to take her children away! Barring that you had better start collecting the bail money .. because the only people that defend pedophiles are pedophiles themselves.
Amraann, I'm not disagreeing that pedophiles are despicable pieces of crap. But if you don't knew either Ms. Biesterfled or Ms Hill, how can you make such statements about Ms Hill? That's a pretty lofty accusation that she just sat back and did nothing while someone was looking at kiddie porn. If it is in fact true, then yeah, she is a moron. But right now it's one woman's word against another's. Who knows, maybe she has some kind of hero complex and wanted to take all the credit for bringing this guy to justice and she did in fact mislead her supervisor. I wouldn't rule anything out. Technically she did do the right thing to report this guy to the police but to automatically assume the supervisor turned a blind eye just based on her word?
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:08 PM
RWill1974 RWill1974 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by adnoid View Post
Thank you - I am going to read the article now. I will not be premature in my reactions, I'd like to finish the whole thing and perhaps do some additional reading.



I choose the posts I find interesting to respond to. I don't mean to jump on you personally, but I did want to discuss the points you raised.

Anyway, I'm not picking on just you, southcitymom is next.
I hear ya, my friend. I'm just trying to foster some healthy debate here.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:10 PM
Amraann Amraann is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post
Why would she make that up?

It's not at all out of the realm of possibility.

Yes it is out of the realm of possibility.... NOTE she was FIRED???
And to back up her claim as to why .... The police arrested HIM ...
Of course the pedo loving skank is going to lie to cover her butt and try to minimize her bad choices.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:12 PM
Floh Floh is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post
I hear ya, my friend. I'm just trying to foster some healthy debate here.
I've been on this site for some time. there can be no debate where paedophiles are concerned. IMO, rightly so.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:14 PM
Amraann Amraann is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post
Amraann, I'm not disagreeing that pedophiles are despicable pieces of crap. But if you don't knew either Ms. Biesterfled or Ms Hill, how can you make such statements about Ms Hill? That's a pretty lofty accusation that she just sat back and did nothing while someone was looking at kiddie porn. If it is in fact true, then yeah, she is a moron. But right now it's one woman's word against another's. Who knows, maybe she has some kind of hero complex and wanted to take all the credit for bringing this guy to justice and she did in fact mislead her supervisor. I wouldn't rule anything out. Technically she did do the right thing to report this guy to the police but to automatically assume the supervisor turned a blind eye just based on her word?

I will agree with your variables.... BUT going on what the media printed is all we can really do.
There is no indication or reason to believe this women lied yet she does have proof that the police arrested him and she was fired..
That is enough proof IMO at least for a chat forum.

At face value there is something wrong with anyone who would turn a blind eye too child porn.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:28 PM
golfmom golfmom is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post

[b]"Ms. Biesterfeld received an evaluation following three months of her employment and received an overall rating of 5 on a scale of 10," it states.
As per their rating formula: a 5 "is reasonable and consistent with normal expectations of proficiency"

What I find interesting is that you jumped to a ton of conclusions on this case without even a mediocre investigation of the facts.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:28 PM
adnoid's Avatar
adnoid adnoid is offline
I'm in it for the tacos.
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Up on the A1, by Scotch Corner
Posts: 16,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom View Post
...I didn't know it was a bad link...
There are no bad links, only bad posters.

It's fixed.
__________________
Μολὼν λαβέ



Email me
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:29 PM
RWill1974 RWill1974 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amraann View Post
I will agree with your variables.... BUT going on what the media printed is all we can really do.
There is no indication or reason to believe this women lied yet she does have proof that the police arrested him and she was fired..
That is enough proof IMO at least for a chat forum.

At face value there is something wrong with anyone who would turn a blind eye too child porn.
I wholeheartedly agree. Anyone who turns a blind eye to that garbage is a poor excuse for a human being.

Now if I was this Hill lady and I did, in fact, not know that he was looking at child porn, then come in and find one of my computers missing and then an employee says I gotta call someone regarding all this, I'd be royally pissed. That is if Hill's side of the story is true. As a library patron I'd be pissed if some dumbass mishelved all the books like the library asserts Ms. Biesterfeld did.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:31 PM
Salem's Avatar
Salem Salem is offline
WS Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27,276
Amraann - I was not trying to imply that smoking marijuana was harmful per se. I was using the analogy that, as everyone has heard a million time, "smoking pot leads to using hard drugs." I think everyone also knows that this is not necessarily true and can think of examples where it does not apply. However, it does appear to be true in SOME cases. Similarily - I think (my opinion) viewing child porn can lead to a desire to act it out. NOT with everyone, but in some cases. Better to act on the side of caution and report such activity, then risk further harm to a child. Because this sort of thing can ruin a person's life, it can be a difficult call to make. However, he can move and start a new life somewhere else. A child harmed is a child harmed forever, no matter where they move to. So my whole point was "report it" and let the courts determine the guilt of the perp. Don't take a chance.

Salem
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:32 PM
FLMom FLMom is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,184
Here's a question that I can't find the answer to:

Who are considered "mandatory reporters" of child abuse in the state of California? I'm pretty sure across the board doctors and teachers are. Would librarian fall under the umbrella of a teacher?
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:38 PM
golfmom golfmom is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,394
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/app...ws01/803140331

The March 6 letter from Lewis said the county's probationary employees can be terminated at any time if they don't perform at a level "necessary for fully satisfactory performance in the employee's position." However, Lindsay City Councilwoman Suzi Picaso said that six weeks before Biesterfeld's firing, an assistant of Lewis told her Biesterfeld was doing a great job.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:39 PM
RWill1974 RWill1974 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfmom View Post
As per their rating formula: a 5 "is reasonable and consistent with normal expectations of proficiency"

What I find interesting is that you jumped to a ton of conclusions on this case without even a mediocre investigation of the facts.
That rating was in January. Appears a lot of stuff went down in the following couple of months. 5 out of 10 isn't exactly the most ideal employee. Funny you accuse me of jumping to conclusions. I'm just putting out what ifs. Just because I don't immediately jump on the Brenda Bandwagon? Where have I once impugned her character? I never said anything as fact that she was lying, only brought up the possibility. That's in contrast to all the hatred directed at Judi Hill, by people who don't even know her or Ms Biesterfeld for that matter.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:46 PM
RWill1974 RWill1974 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfmom View Post
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/app...ws01/803140331

The March 6 letter from Lewis said the county's probationary employees can be terminated at any time if they don't perform at a level "necessary for fully satisfactory performance in the employee's position." However, Lindsay City Councilwoman Suzi Picaso said that six weeks before Biesterfeld's firing, an assistant of Lewis told her Biesterfeld was doing a great job.
Oh, in that case: case closed! An assistant said she was doing a great job. You got me there.

Who the hell is the assistant and was she friendly with Biesterfeld? Do YOU know this assistant personally?
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:52 PM
golfmom golfmom is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post
That rating was in January. Appears a lot of stuff went down in the following couple of months. 5 out of 10 isn't exactly the most ideal employee. Funny you accuse me of jumping to conclusions. I'm just putting out what ifs. Just because I don't immediately jump on the Brenda Bandwagon? Where have I once impugned her character? I never said anything as fact that she was lying, only brought up the possibility. That's in contrast to all the hatred directed at Judi Hill, by people who don't even know her or Ms Biesterfeld for that matter.
No, I went to the trouble yesterday to research the hell out of the story ... providing links of her before and after evaluations as well as tons of different media sources and articles. I also provided information on the secret "drop file" as well as provided links to the specific description of what she said she saw. You jumped right in saying that the only source was a right wing agenda based media and that there's lots of different reasons to have naked boys on your computer.

I don't hate Judi, or like Brenda, I researched the story. You jumped in without reading the thread or researching the story.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:53 PM
golfmom golfmom is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post
Oh, in that case: case closed! An assistant said she was doing a great job. You got me there.

Who the hell is the assistant and was she friendly with Biesterfeld? Do YOU know this assistant personally?
That's just one link of at least a dozen that I've posted on this story.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:59 PM
RWill1974 RWill1974 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfmom View Post
No, I went to the trouble yesterday to research the hell out of the story ... providing links of her before and after evaluations as well as tons of different media sources and articles. I also provided information on the secret "drop file" as well as provided links to the specific description of what she said she saw. You jumped right in saying that the only source was a right wing agenda based media and that there's lots of different reasons to have naked boys on your computer.

I don't hate Judi, or like Brenda, I researched the story. You jumped in without reading the thread or researching the story.
The initial link to the story was World Net Daily. That's how I got involved in the story, yes. But I also read all the other sources as well. The Drop File still doesn't prove anything.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 05-02-2008, 06:04 PM
adnoid's Avatar
adnoid adnoid is offline
I'm in it for the tacos.
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Up on the A1, by Scotch Corner
Posts: 16,158
We want those.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post
I hear ya, my friend. I'm just trying to foster some healthy debate here.
And to do that we've got to define what we're debating first. I see three issues:

1) Was Brenda's employment terminated in a legal manner?

2) Should Brenda's employment have been terminated when it was?

3) Did Brenda do the right thing by calling the police on Crisler?

After reading the articles posted, as a mental exercise we can take all the facts that are not in dispute and accept them. We then have certain facts that are in dispute:

a) Did Brenda tell Judi that Crisler was looking at CHILD or REGULAR porn?

b) Did Brenda tell Judi that the phone message was a call from a police officer?

c) Were the additional "performance deficiencies" in Brenda's file fabricated and placed there after this issue became contentious?

So:

Issue 1: If all disputed facts are resolved in Brenda's favor, I'd say she was legally terminated. There's no dispute she was on probation and could be terminated for any reason - or no reason.

Issue 2: If all disputed facts are resolved in Brenda's favor, I'd say Brenda could have been terminated for those reasons. Insubordination does not work out. If we assume that all the added reasons were 100% legitimate, it paints a picture of an employee that might not be top notch.

Issue 3: If all disputed facts are resolved against Brenda, I feel very strongly that she did the right thing. There is no situation under which the existence of child porn is acceptable. The vileness of those who make, sell, and posses child porn is such that I lack the words to properly express my feelings, other than to repeat what I have said before: Child abusers should be disassembled with machetes, and I'd be happy to help.

So what I come away with is that she was fired legally, a strong case can be made that she should have been fired as a business decision based on all the other factors. But I would not have fired her because her actions in turning in Crisler show me a moral fiber so strong that I, as her supervisor, would want to keep her on board and use my time and efforts to mentor her in order to get her to improve the other aspects of her work. My reading brings me to a conclusion that she resolved a conflict between library policy and innocent children in favor of the children. I don't know what I would do with someone that resolved that conflict in favor of library policy, but someone who resolves that conflict in favor of protecting the children is someone I'll work with on the insubordination and paperwork issues.

I understand that Crisler has been charged (7 felony counts) but not convicted. However, the fact that the DA considers him a child porn violator gives me confidence that Brenda's judgment about what she saw him looking at was accurate.

What do you think?
__________________
Μολὼν λαβέ



Email me
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 05-02-2008, 06:08 PM
golfmom golfmom is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post
The initial link to the story was World Net Daily. That's how I got involved in the story, yes. But I also read all the other sources as well. The Drop File still doesn't prove anything.
So, you read one post that linked WND and assumed that was the ONLY paper reporting the story and didn't bother to research it yourself.

Yes, I'm well aware of your logic, photos of naked boys may not be porn either.

Anyway . . . I worked in HR for a long time and know how this works:

The Drop File is stuffed primarily with items from after her termination, including copies of the news reports. It also includes a scathing write up on what a crappy employee she is written, not the day before she was fired, not the week before she was fired, but after she was handed her pink slip. Up until she pissed off Judi, by reporting this matter to the police and losing the computer to a criminal investigation, she was a solid employee. They worked double time trying to prove that her termination had nothing to do with her reporting the child porn. And, for good reason ... it's going to cost county tax payers a bundle.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 05-02-2008, 06:10 PM
golfmom golfmom is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by adnoid View Post

a) Did Brenda tell Judi that Crisler was looking at CHILD or REGULAR porn?

This is my sticking point, I'm not 100% convinced that Brenda conveyed to Judi that it was in fact child porn. If she was at all hesitant in her language or reporting, I can see how Judi wanted it handled by the library. Viewing porn is not illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 05-02-2008, 06:15 PM
adnoid's Avatar
adnoid adnoid is offline
I'm in it for the tacos.
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Up on the A1, by Scotch Corner
Posts: 16,158
We want those.

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfmom View Post
This is my sticking point, I'm not 100% convinced that Brenda conveyed to Judi that it was in fact child porn. If she was at all hesitant in her language or reporting, I can see how Judi wanted it handled by the library. Viewing porn is not illegal.
Yeah, I know it's not illegal. But in the LIBRARY? That's just wrong. Even if it's adults looking at adults, go home. If you can't afford a computer at home you should be working anyway, not looking for ways to watch porn.
__________________
Μολὼν λαβέ



Email me
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 05-02-2008, 06:20 PM
golfmom golfmom is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by adnoid View Post
Yeah, I know it's not illegal. But in the LIBRARY? That's just wrong. Even if it's adults looking at adults, go home. If you can't afford a computer at home you should be working anyway, not looking for ways to watch porn.
Yeah ... pretty slimy. And, although that would excuse Judi's statement to NOT report it to the police, it doesn't excuse her termination of Brenda. What's conspicuously absent from the "Drop File" is any documentation that would indicate Brenda was going to be let go before her probationary period was up.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 05-02-2008, 06:27 PM
Amraann Amraann is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWill1974 View Post
I wholeheartedly agree. Anyone who turns a blind eye to that garbage is a poor excuse for a human being.

Now if I was this Hill lady and I did, in fact, not know that he was looking at child porn, then come in and find one of my computers missing and then an employee says I gotta call someone regarding all this, I'd be royally pissed. That is if Hill's side of the story is true. As a library patron I'd be pissed if some dumbass mishelved all the books like the library asserts Ms. Biesterfeld did.
I guess I am missing why she would be pissed???
I would hope that my employees ..if I was not there would not turn a blind eye either... I would want them to handle the situation in my absence.
Although I do appreciate your debating the topic

"Amraann - I was not trying to imply that smoking marijuana was harmful per se. I was using the analogy that, as everyone has heard a million time, "smoking pot leads to using hard drugs." I think everyone also knows that this is not necessarily true and can think of examples where it does not apply. However, it does appear to be true in SOME cases. Similarily - I think (my opinion) viewing child porn can lead to a desire to act it out. NOT with everyone, but in some cases. Better to act on the side of caution and report such activity, then risk further harm to a child. Because this sort of thing can ruin a person's life, it can be a difficult call to make. However, he can move and start a new life somewhere else. A child harmed is a child harmed forever, no matter where they move to. So my whole point was "report it" and let the courts determine the guilt of the perp. Don't take a chance.

Salem"

I get what your saying I just meant that even viewing child porn is harmful to those children abused into posing for it.
Simply viewing child porn is one of the few sexual things that is harmful to others..
I mean most things are between consenting adults.. but being a pedophile is harmful without ever having sexual contact.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:46 AM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!