I would over the next three months remember some more things about that day when Scott and I went to the recreation center, or at least that is when I believe I told Scott about these memories.
Sometimes its hard to remember, when you actually remembered something and when you first told someone about it.
At any rate, some more memories started to emerge later from this particular black out, and I don't remember if they emerged a few days later, a few weeks later, or a few months later. It was about three months later when I told Scott about them.
Looking back on it. I wish I hadn't of told Scott about these memories because I didn't know it at the time, that apparently I wasn't supposed to remember these things, and I believe my life became endangered the moment I told Scott about them.
I am getting ahead of myself though.
I wanted to make some comments about the last chapter.
I have, over the years, had the opportunity to speak with people who were either law enforcement, or retired law enforcement, or who had a criminal science education, and after talking with these persons specifically regarding the circumstances as I have described them in the last chapter, they have made comments of their own, that I would like to address at this time.
There is something called in Criminal Science "Profiling" (No, I'm not talking about police officer's pulling over minority groups), and most law enforcement officers are required to take courses in Criminal Science in order to learn about profiling.
What profiling is, in short, is what has been learned by the psychological study of different types of criminals; how they think and how they behave (something that is called in the Latin modus operandi or M.O.)
Law Enforcement officers rely heavily on their ability to accurately profile criminals in order to apprehend them.
I myself have not taken any Criminal Science or Criminal Psychology classes so I am not speaking as an expert, I am just relaying what was told to me.
I have described to law enforcement officers and others with a criminal psychology background, the scenario of the previous chapter with them, just as I have described it to you in my book regarding the events that occurred at the rec-center as I remember them.
And this is what I have been told.
This scenario at the rec-center on the surface appears to be what would be called in criminal science a 'lure"
A lure, would be a common method that a pedophile would use when encountering an opportunistic situation.
It is true that pedophiles are known to visit parks, and recreation centers, and places where children congregate looking for targets that they can lure.
Usually they will sit in their car, or sit a particular distance away from where the children are but close enough to observe them individually.
I am told that usually, a random lure such as this, which means, the pedophile apparently does not know who he is going to lure, will observe a child for a period of time before he makes his approach.
The reason for this is that pedophiles usually target their intended victims. They are looking for a child with certain personality characteristics. Specifically, they are almost always looking for a child who is playing by himself, looks sad or disturbed, looks like maybe he has no friends, has low esteem, etc...
The reason they target these kinds of children is because these are children who are most likely to fall for their lure.
In order to successfully identify a child of this nature, it is necessary for the perpetrator to observe them for a period of time.
I am told, that right off the bat, the scenario I have described is not consistent with the profile of a random pedo lure.
The first reason is because, according to my description, the perpetrator really had no reasonable amount of time to observe us before he made his approach.
The period of observation need not be a long one, but it appears in this scenario there isn't one at all.
Scott and I arrived at the recreation center, and it took me about one minute to pull my socks and shoes off, and then we went inside the sand box and started playing on the equipment.
I remember that we had been playing for no longer than a couple of minutes when the man approached us.
Assuming the man was sitting in his car in the parking lot, and judging the distance from the parking lot to where we were playing, the man would have had to have gotten out of his car and begin his approach towards us almost immediately upon him seeing us arrive at the recreation center.
Even if he wasn't sitting in his car in the parking lot, the profile of this type would indicate that he would still be about the same distance away, in order to observe but not particularly be noticed.
I have been told that this alone, would have law enforcement ruling out that this was a lure, and consider other possibilities.
The next thing that is inconsistent with this profile, is that the perpetrator approached two children playing with each other.
This is very unlikely. Not to say it never happens, but usually such a move would only be made by a novice or beginner pedophile, because usually attempting to use a lure on two children playing with other simply doesn't work and usually ends up getting the perp in trouble.
The other reason why it is rarely done, is because the perp is looking for a child who is a loner; loner's don't play with other children. A major component of the lure, is that the child will be tempted to play with the perp since he has no one else to play with.
Even if one of us, Scott or I, portrayed characteristics which caused the perp to target one of us, the perp would probably leave us alone since we were playing with each other.
This is why parent's are told these days that rec-centers, parks, and other public places where children congregate can be especially dangerous to a child who is alone, by himself, and that parent's are strongly encouraged to make sure their children take a buddy with them. This profoundly reduces the chances of their child being approached by a pedophile.
There are some lures that are designed to work on one or two children but they are very rarely used. For example one known lure is a man claiming that he has lost his dog, and asks a child to help him look for his dog. If the lure works, the perp manages to get the kid off somewhere where they are alone. This lure can also work with two children, but almost all lures are designed for one child, and even this lure is rarely even tried on two children.
Going further I am told, that Scott's reaction to the perp and his lure was very unlikely. This is why.
Scott actually didn't fit the personality profile of a child that would likely fall for a lure. Scott was a very charismatic child, full of confidence; the exact opposite of the type of personality of a child who would likely fall for the lure.
And it seems that the perp actually when he makes his approach makes first contact with Scott. In all likelihood, the perp would have attempted first contact with me, since I was the boy with low self-esteem, lack of confidence, etc... but instead speaks first to Scott.
One of the reasons why when children who have a buddy they are accompanied with are safer is because children like me who have low self-esteem and lack of confidence, when playing with another child, who might, if alone be tempted by the lure, usually the other child will attempt to interfere with the lure, such as I did.
This is why Pedo's almost never attempt to use a lure with two children playing with each other-- the odds of both of them falling for the lure at the same time is most unlikely.
In that scenario, it's almost certain that the perp would have left, realizing that the lure was not working on both children, and that if he persisted he would probably end up getting caught.
But instead, the perpetrator follows me into the bathroom, which is actually the only part of the scenario that really makes any sense, because I would have most likely been his prime target. However, once getting me alone, it is most likely that he either would have attempted to molest me right there in the bathroom or else take me somewhere else away from Scott.
But instead he comes back with me and plays with both Scott and I until I hurt my foot.
At this point, if the perp really did not know either one of us, his strongest compulsion at this point as I headed into the office would be to leave the scene immediately, he already had committed illegal acts.
But, apparently, stays there with Scott, and talks with Scott when they were not aware that I could see them in a way that it appeared that Scott and this man knew each other.
I have gotten the same opinion from several different law enforcement and police science persons-- that this was not a lure. Something else was going on here.
I have been told that it seems to more fit the profile of what I think was told to me is called a contact.
I have been told that often times when a pedo has successfully used a lure on a child, and was successful at molesting the child, and it was determined that the child reacted in a positive manner and did not tell anyone, that often times, another pedo may be given this information.
The primary reason for this, I am told, is that child molesters, usually prefer to limit the number of sexual encounters they have with the same child. The less encounters, the less likely the child is to be able to identify the perp later on. Many child molesters will only molest one child one time. After that, they will give or sell information about the child to another perp.
The reason other perps would seek this information or even be willing to pay for it is because this type of information is very valuable to them; It makes successful contacts with children that lead to sexual encounters much more likely, with much less chance of getting caught. It works something like this from what I understand.
A pedo goes to a park or some other place, target's a kid, lures him, and then ends up molesting him.
After a period of time when it seems that it can be safe to say that the kid never told anybody about the encounter, the pedo may "pass off" the kid to another pedo.
So, information about the kid, what he looks like, where he hangs out, etc... is given to another pedo. And that pedo, will go to that location where the child is likely to show up, and make his approach, which in this case would not be called a lure, but would be called a contact.
Sometimes the kid may be aware of the contact; that is, he knows that he's to meet someone there, and sometimes he doesn't.
In this case, I was told, that this seems to be a contact of some kind, probably a contact that both perpetrator and victim were aware of. This often is the case in child prostitution, where the child is instructed to go to a certain location at a certain time, and the perp is told to go to that same location at that same time and they are both aware of each other.
However, in this case it seems this was probably not a child prostitution contact but something a little different.
Sometimes, pedophiles groom children, which basically means that they prepare them for sexual contact, and often times the child is completely unaware that they are being groomed.
Often times children are used to groom other children.
When a child is being groomed for eventual sexual contact and is unaware of it, This is known as a con, and I think everyone knows what is con is.
So, in conclusion, it is my belief, based on conversations I have had with those in law enforcement and others who have criminal psychology backgrounds, that although this scenario at the rec-center was made to look like a lure, it was actually a contact.
And in addition, the contact was combined with a con, for the purpose of grooming another child.
I strongly believe that the evidence indicates that Scott and the perp knew each other prior to what was made to look like a "chance" meeting at the rec-center.
-- Edited by The Phantom on Tuesday 6th of July 2010 02:15:35 PM
__________________
"Sometimes when you open your mind to the impossible, you discover the truth." Walter from Fringe.
