Authorities are leaving no stone unturned in the search for missing cousins Lyric Cook-Morrissey and Elizabeth Collins. The girls disappeared July 13th, after leaving their grandmother's house to go bike riding. Their bikes were found near Meyers Lake in Evansdale, Iowa that same day, but no girls. The public immediately assumed there was a sex offender involved, which is not that far-fetched in this day and age. It's actually a far-too-frequent reality.
One of the first things done by Black Hawk County authorities was to interview all the sex offenders in the area, just sort of a checking in, how have you been, did you take any girls from the area recently kind of visit. All were accounted for. However, a smart (and guilty) sex offender would know that they would be coming to check and he would have an air-tight alibi and have the girls stashed somewhere else. That, of course, is speculation, but to understand how a criminal thinks, one must think like a criminal.
Turns out one percent of Iowa's sex offenders, which equals 52 people, have absconded from Iowa, making the search for them difficult. This is actually a bigger problem, nationwide, with the national total being about 14 percent, or around 100,000. These numbers are not exact because, well, they aren't reporting...
Where are Lyric and Elizabeth? Were they taken by a sex offender? Was someone really mad at their parents? Did their uncle, who was hospitalized for a drug overdose shortly after their disappearance, have any part in this? All the unanswered questions don't sit easily with the family of the missing girls, the town, or the public. Hopefully, the tip box at the Iowa State Fair will provide some useful information leading to their whereabouts.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 56
The public was quick to raise questions about whether a sex offender was involved in the girls’ disappearance.
Authorities wondered the same thing.
Thank you for your input!
I dont get the stick up for your local sex offender thingy...
And here are some numbers on child abductions for you.
Of the 800,000 children reported missing annually, approximately 69,000 are abducted:
Family members account for the majority of these reported cases (82 percent)
Non-family abductions account for 12,000 of these reported cases (18 percent)
Of non-family abductions, 37 percent are by a stranger
This is a terrible thing, and I pray that these girls are found soon and alive, but according to these statistics, the family and family friends are the first ones to look at.
Another tragic story of the death of a child. It didn't take long however for the media to start a fervor over sex offenders. They pointed out that 15 registered sex offenders lived in that very same trailer park. However the media did not tell us why they even brought that up.
Not one of the fifteen has been charged with any crime related to that little girl. The man responsible was not on the registry. The crime would seem to be murder and not a sex offense.
However since the media brought up the sex offender issue, let's look at that for a moment.
The Sex Offender Registry, the crown jewel of child safety. How did it do in protecting this small child?
1. Did it make the mother aware that the murderer was a danger to her child? NO
2. Did it give the location where the murderer lived? NO
3. Did it give the location where the murderer worked? NO
4. Did it list the murderer's face on an internet website so the mother could make sure to keep him away from her child? NO
5. Did it aide in the investigation, hastening the case being solved? NO. Law Enforcement wasted countless hours and valuable resources chasing down Registrants while the real murder walked around watching Law Enforcement chase the wrong people.
Did the registry give the mother a false sense of security? It seems it did. She was concerned about the RSO's in the trailer park. She did what she thought was necessary to protect her children. She asked about some of the RSO's and they were on her mind. The registery did however distract her from the real danger, Michael Plumadore. He was not on the registry, he had credibility. As one of the few men in the trailer park not on the registry he seemed to be the safest choice when the mother needed help.
Some of the media responses to this tragedy point to the cluster of sex offenders. The interesting part about this is that the cluster is state sanctioned because a paranoid public has demanded laws restricting these offenders from certain locations. In some states and cities the living options for former offenders and their families are severally limited. The media is greatly to blame for sex offender clusters. They pander to proponents that say there is a need to push registered offended away from populated areas. The media however does not report findings from studies that show that residency restrictions are ineffective, costly and counterproductive.
All that residency restrictions do is to give the public a false sense of security. We must ask ourselves, if we force these people to cluster, if we then list their location online, are we not inviting people like Michael Plumadore to take advantage of that situation? After all, a man like Michael Plumadore would see a cluster as a safe place to carry out his crime with less fear of being caught.
I do know a man who was falsely convicted, and rather than take a plea like so many do, he sat in prison and fought like the devil. It took a long time but it was overturned AND he successfully sued. I KNOW there are innocent people registered as sex offenders, but sorry, I don't buy that anyone is out to demonize them. Keep them the %^&$ away from kids, yeah, otherwise, BS.
In addition, the 'he said/she said' aspect of it is unjust. The man I know was convicted on the statement of one person. No physical evidence, no witnesses, no DNA. I never would have believed it to be possible if I didn't see it for myself. Yes, his was overturned, but not until he spent over a year in prison and lost everything he owned. Being shunned by a public that was like I was, and doesn't believe that could really happen in America is an after effect he lives with years later.
"In contrast to media reporting..." I believe that also refers to Ms. Knight.
Shelly you are right.
Gargh, wish newbies would atually read the TOS when they sign up to make comments so they understand this is a community of people not writers.
Myself, I get paid when I write (books, short stories, reviews, screenplays), I don't write for free.
Really? What about the nine and ten year old kids on the registry? The twelve and fourteen year olds? Is it okay if their parents, at least, love them? Maybe even their grandparents? Siblings? And since one of the more successful models going for sex offender treatment involves family re-unification, I guess you need to let the state boards who oversee these programs know that the idea of "loving" a sex offender is abhorrent to you. I'm sure they will give your opinions the credence they deserve. Of course, they may be influenced by the indications that this particular model, while not what everyone would choose, seems to offer the most in the way of healing for the victim and lessening of an already low rate of risk of re-offense. Of course, it does involve forgiveness and lots of love, two concepts that many people don't have the courage to embrace.
Lets try and keep this real. If you want to make a case on how all sexual deviants are just misunderstood and deserve some lovin too then at least be truthful about it...there arent sex offenders that are listed on registries that are 9 years old.
I have known 2 idiot women in my life that have loved a poor misunderstood sex offender and guess what genius both were just shocked and surprised and hurt when they found out the love of their life was molesting their kids.
If you want to be be ignorant and ignore all the data and evidence out there showing how sexual deviants are not capable of being rehabilitated and "love them" then go right ahead but when something happens to your kids or grandkids or neices or nephews you should get a worse penalty then the offender.
Not all of these involve actual registration of children; as I said the youngest actually on the registry are nine. But the fact that three and six year olds have been officially investigated, even charged, for sex offenses shows where we are headed.
http://michiganmessenger.com/34538/juveniles-well-represented-on-mich-sex-offender-registry
http://www.examiner.com/article/wisconsin-da-says-6-year-old-is-a-sex-offender-for-playing-doctor
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/285802/3/State-investigators-looking-into-alleged-fondling-at-pre-school
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063533/12-year-olds-investigated-sex-crime-kiss-school-Florida.html
Texas Sex Offenders: Ages 10-17 at time of the crime
"Texas law allows juveniles as young as 10 to be included on the public sex offender registry. There are at least 1,004 who were under the age of 14 - which means they were too young to be tried as adults, when they committed offenses. The juvenile justice system has been designed to give children who break the law a second chance by keeping their criminal records private, yet their names and photos can be posted on the state's sex offender Website if a judge orders it. About 4,000 people are on the Texas sex offender registry for crimes committed as juveniles."
Source: Dallas Morning News research from the Texas Department of Public Safety
For this one, after opening, scroll to the Sept. 16 entry:
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html
Is that enough, Lori? I have more.
From YOUR source listed above. You might want to actually READ your sources so you dont end up looking this unintelligent all the time.
" Moreover, critics of the state registry often point to the employment- and housing-denying stigma that accompanies extended punishment on the public registry long after consensual but underage sex, or other non-violent sex crimes, has triggered an offense." If we are going to be realistic, the punishment of the registry is the same whether the original listing was public or private. And I'm sure you read the rest of the information; in Texas, at the time of the printing of that article, there were slightly over 1,000 ten through thirteen year olds on the public registry.
Lori, I'm not trying to play games here or prove I can outdo you, and I would never insult your intelligence; that would be childish and counterproductive; I'm sure you are intelligent. I hope that you use your intelligence to really think about some of these issues and do a little more research. Look at who is responsible for almost all cases of child molestation. Look at what the evidence shows about the effectiveness of the public registry and things like residency restrictions.
Thank you for you interest; blessings to you and your family.
You should be ashamed of yourselves. I should be sterilized? Really? They should be kept away from children? No, Ms. Knight, you clearly did not do ANY research on the topic of sex offenders and nor have any of your other readers. What part of "96% of sex crimes are committed by those not on the registry" don't you get? What part of single-digit recidivism don't you get? Live in your little world where sex offenders and their families are okay to throw to the wolves until it's shattered when someone in YOUR family abuses your child. You will wish you had known then.
Jessica, I believe that when you have had the time and opportunity to do some more research, you will discover that your statement just isn't true.
And it isn't a matter of defending or not defending. It is a matter of a badly broken system that does absolutely nothing to protect anyone and actually causes a great deal of harm to children in a variety of ways. If you will forgive a little self-promotion here, I would be sincerely interested in your opinion of this article, or, to keep Nellie happy, this commentary. http://www.corrections.com/news/article/30787-if-it-saves-one-child
You may not like it, but that doesn't change the facts. One of those facts is that you will sooner find the picture of a pedophile/child molester in a family reunion photo than you will on the national sex offender registry. It is not strangers on a list that you need to look out for, it's people living in your own house, extended family members, close friends, and actually anyone you TRUST to be alone with your child. That's not my opinion or "commentary" those are cold hard facts that you can find out for yourself if you spent more time reading the Department of Justice website than commentaries. If people bothered to do their own research and educated themselves, their children would be a whole lot safer.
Hype, lies, and exaggerations don't protect anyone, let alone your children.
Of all of the most recent incidences of abduction, how many were found to have been perpetrated by a registered sex offender? Only ONE that I can think of. Believe me, people like Nancy Grace and Jane Valez-Mitchell pay their producers well to FIND these stories. They pay people to search high and low for them, because they are desperately trying to prove the B.S. they spew nightly on their programs. There has only been one that I can remember in the last year. ONE. Of course, one is too many, but screaming about it like it's 100,000 is only keeping the public scared, and preventing them from allowing their children to grow up to be sane adults, instead of paranoid individuals that won't know how to take care of themselves because Mommy and Daddy aren't hovering over them like a helicopter every minute.
We haven't even begun to see the rammifications of this type of parenting.
The sex offender registry is a useless tool where safety is concerned, and on the contrary it actually PUTS children in danger in more than one way. The first way is that it gives parents a false sense of security. The second way is that it puts the children of the people who are in this list in danger every single day of their lives. For the most part, people can't handle this type of information, and on the worst end of things, those who have vigilante type personalities have been shown to use it to cause harm. Homes have been burned down, in one instance, the offender was out, and his wife died in his place. People have walked up to homes and blasted away with guns. Those that have been killed weren't the big bad child molesters we all seem to so badly fear. One was a Romeo and Juliet case.
You all seem to want to believe that these offenders live by themselves on their own little island, with no connections to humanity whatsoever. That's not true. They have mothers, fiance's, long time girlfriends/significant others, grandparents, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, and most importantly...children. You don't want to admit that they are more like you than you think. Their family members love them, and too bad if you don't like it. They've served their time, and they deserve to be left the Hell alone, unless they PROVE otherwise. Since when, in the great United States of America do we punish people who've served their time and been set free, for the rest of their lives? Who the Hell do we think we are? THINK about it long and hard, because it takes VERY VERY little to find someone you love be put on that list...if not your ownself. It doesn't take much at all to put someone on that list. THAT's another thing that's wrong with it. I could care less about the 18 year old and his 15 year old girlfriend, or the guy who had too much to drink getting caught peeing in public, or the guy who got caught peeping in windows, because I'm educated in this topic and I KNOW that he's a voyeur and they get off by LOOKING, and NOT touching. He is no one for me to fear if I'm bright enough to keep my bedroom and bathroom shades pulled as we all should anyway.
Where has common sense gone.
You ask where common sense has gone...obviously not with you. You are parroting every falsehood that these deviants put out there to justify their perversion.
People are even put on the registry for non-sexual crimes. In some states "restraint of leaving" or "holding against one's will" is a sex offense even in the absence of a sexual intent or action. For years people were put on the registry in several states when there had been no sexual offense conviction. In Texas it was called "Condition X," and years after a supreme court ruled that a hearing must be held first, the parole board was still imposing it with no hearing. Finally, about a year ago, facing strict sanctions, they started obeying the court ruling.
Sex Offender does NOT mean CHILD MOLESTER
There are many many many ways to end up with the sex offender label that has NOTHING to do with children, and often times have no victims. Many people misinterpret the term "sex offender". It is important to understand the difference.
So, when you make the comment of "...anyone that does love a sex offender should be sterilzed [sic] so they dont [sic] produce offspring and if they have children living with them those kids should be taken away immediately"....that is very unfair.
This is a touchy subject, mostly because the average person doesn't really understand the implications of the sex offender label and often times the fact that everyone has access to this information on the registry might not be the best thing considering that people don't understand what they are looking at.
For example, you see two 38 year old men on the registry and they live down the street.
An 18 year old guy who had sex with his teenage girlfriend 20 years ago, did 2 years in prison, is now married and has children of his own. His charge on the registry reads "sexual acts with a minor"...he is now 38.
A 38 year old man who sexually abused his step-daughter, took a plea, and is now on probation. His charge on the registry reads "sexual acts with a minor"...he is now 38.
I guess what I am trying to say is that, there are people out there who fear for their lives because the average person thinks that all sex offenders are rapists and child molesters and they deserve any punishment that is handed to them. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Sex Offenders are unique in the way that their punishment is a painted with a broad brush.
A person who gets a ticket for driving without a license and a person who get a ticket for driving drunk are both seen as "Traffic Violators". Although it is clear to see that BOTH should not carry the same punishment. Same thing with sex offenders. Obviously I am not comparing sex crimes to traffic violations, but it is just an easy way to illustrate my point.
Again, I am sorry that everyone seems to be attacking you, because you are obviously not an expert on this topic and you did not do research, therefore you would not know. But I am happy to see that you are reading the comments and that means you are educating yourself at the same time. The more people talk about this issue, the more people will understand it. The problem is that the topic of sex offenses are taboo, and so people don't like to discuss it. They just like to paint over it with a really broad paint brush and just say, "lets kill them all" or "lets put them all on an island so we can keep our kids safe". Unfortunately, that is not how we should be approaching the subject. I implore you to take a few moments and research this topic. I promise you it won't take long to find one or two articles and studies that may open your eyes to the other side of the fence that many of the commenters here are standing on.
So how many high profile cases involve those on the list, anyways? I have provided you a link with the answer. The chances of this case being the result of a registrant is mathematically small. In missing person cases the most likely scenario is someone the victim knows.
http://www.oncefallen.com/100000missing.html
Second point, the 100,000 missing sex offender myth has existed for a decade despite the number of RSOS have almost doubled and compliance sweeps have been conducted regularly across the board.
Of course, Gather is not a real journalism site so the amount or research necessary to publish here is non-existent. Lets face it, the writer of this article is just pissed she got slammed for writing something she pulled out that rather large mass of area she rests upon while at the computer.
Many many cases like these are in fact linked to family members or people closest to the children that have gone missing. I think we can all agree here. However, I think that we can also agree that if something as devastating as this happens in a small town, people are going to be worried. A shock like this can leave a community broken apart. People are going to think the worst. No one WANTS to believe a child's uncle, father, grandparent would kidnap them. What's the next thing to believe? MAYBE the 15 registered sex offenders that live in your 3 block radius? Theres always the chance that MAYBE that other 18% could tie into this case and it could in fact be the person down the street that is registered because of aggravated sexual assault or rape.
I completely understand that some people on the registered list committed crimes 20 years ago that wouldn't be comparable to others- but what i believe is that the majority of people on the registered list EARNED their way there. Just like Philip Garrido. And the millions of other men out there who have kidnapped and/or murdered young children.
Basically my point is that we shouldn't lose sight of WHY we have registered sex offender lists and the importance of them. A kid who committed a crime at 18 for having sex with his 17 yr old girlfriend lives in your neighborhood- The cops can go to his house and question him and he should have nothing to worry about. He didn't do anything right?
National sex offender registries are necessary. They are important.
Lets just try and get these girls home okay? Thanks.
basically what I'm saying because apparently none of you know what it is.
Your citation of a source in support of the registry piqued my interest--and then I opened it. Ms. Sax has a less than stellar standing as an expert in this subject, but since I hadn't read that piece in a while, I re-read. It's a nice read, but it gives no evidence to support her theory.
She and you both cite Megan's Law: please take a look at the report of an actual, scientific, peer-reviewed study: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/study_finds_megans_law_fails_t_1.html
And then look at this New York study which shows, from ten years before the registry went public to eleven years after, that nothing changed; new sex crimes were committed 95% by those with no previous sex conviction.
http://theparson.net/so/
And Alexa, "millions of men" may have kidnapped and murdered young children, but those millions were not men on the registry. This is new information just recently out:
It is from the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Crimes Against Children: Abductions
“In 2010… less than 1 percent of the abductors were RSOs.
RSOs contribute to a miniscule part of the child abduction problem. In contrast to media reporting, the number of cases involving a registered sex offender is decreasing. In addition to the FBI reporting, NCMEC has revealed that there were no RSOs involved in AMBER Alert cases in 2009.
Although abductors can vary in age, race, or physicality, the FBI assesses with high confidence that the majority of child abductors involved in FBI child abduction cases, CARD team deployments, and AMBER Alerts have a relationship with the child victim. Moreover, despite media reporting, the FBI confidently assesses that the majority of child abductions are committed by persons with a relationship to the child they abduct.”
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/august-2011/crimes-again st-children-spotlight
Alexa, I want children protected every bit as much as you and Jessica and anyone else, but what we are doing now isn't working, it is hurting because we tie up every penny and every resource on the registry and Megan's Law, and no one is even talking about a national plan of any sort that will actually help put an end to the sexual molestation of children.
Thanks for reading; keep reading, and blessings to you and yours.