On September 1, 2015, Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson argued to the court the reasons why Steven Sitler poses a risk to society at large as well as his son. It’s must-hear audio. The following transcription begins at 23:38. Please note the wide range of ages of Sitler’s victims referenced in the first paragraph:

. . . . There was no indication of multiple offenses; there was no record to show that he had victims — multiple victims of various ages, including tender ages. There was no information indicating that Mr. Wolf Child had had physical contact with his own children that resulted in some degree of sexual stimulation on the part of Mr. Wolf Child.

Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson

By contrast the information this court now has before it by virtue of the laundry list of materials, reports, interviews — including the DVD of the actual interview and polygraph most recently with Mr. Sitler — shows that’s not the case here; that we have a record for this court to show that Mr. Sitler has engaged in physical contact with his child that has resulted in sexual stimulation on his part. And that was disclosed to his wife and not reported to Valley Treatment Specialties. It apparently was disclosed to Dr. Wilson [no relation to Mr. Wilson — Ed.], although we don’t know exactly what Dr. Wilson understood to have been disclosed, because if Your Honor will remember when we were meeting last month on this, the disclosure we were dealing with at that point was merely a physical contact that resulted in a thought. We now have a disclosure that says there was physical contact that resulted in actual sexual stimulation — with his own child. That is a completely different scenario than Wolf Child, and it is a different scenario than what the court was presented with last month when the court ordered line-of-sight supervision. So, the State would suggest that the conclusion in Wolf Child — the decision in Wolf Child setting aside the conditions in that case — does not match the facts and indeed, if we use the analysis the court contemplates in Wolf Child, the opposite result is the appropriate result.

I’ve already mentioned — and I appreciate counsel’s comment to the court about Valley Treatment being the experts in this. Indeed, they are the treating experts in this; they’re the ones that are certified in the state of Idaho; they’re the ones with the sexual-treatment history with Mr. Sitler; they were compromised in their ability to provide that service because these disclosures were never shared with them by Mr. Sitler or his wife — or by anybody else.

As far as the line-of-sight supervision we may be . . . we may be talking about a situation that is of no ultimate consequence anyway because it is my understanding based on the disclosures known to the Department today that they are revoking the chaperone status of Mr. Sitler’s parents, because as pointed out, as disclosed in the most recent polygraph interview, there were historic events that apparently were shared with one or both of Mr. Sitler’s parents of Mr. Sitler becoming sexually aroused observing a young female on a vacation trip — none of that was reported although the chaperone agreements require them to report that.

You know, I can sympathize and appreciate the situation that Mr. Sitler’s parents find themselves in; that his wife finds herself in; that their family and friends and supporters find themselves in; because everybody would love for Mr. Sitler to become a normal person. The fact of the matter is, Your Honor, he is not. He is a serial child sexual abuser, to the point where Your Honor has imposed a life sentence and required that he be under supervision for the rest of his natural life.

He has multiple victims, all of them young — some so young that they would not be in any position to protect themselves. The risk to society is substantial here. The risk to his own child — despite the best wishes and hopes of everybody in this courtroom — is substantial. The actions that he has engaged in that he has disclosed to this point are a compelling basis that he cannot have anything close to a normal parental relationship with this child — certainly at this point in time.

I don’t say that lightly. I think the majority of the people in this room have children; they know how important it is to have a relationship with their own children — counsel, Your Honor, myself. But Mr. Sitler’s situation is unique. And as we stand here today, even though this is not a child-protection case by title, I think the most compelling, pressing issue is ensuring the protection of this child.

The best way to handle that is to prohibit Mr. Sitler from having contact with the child except in the direct line-of-sight supervision of a responsible approved chaperone — approved by the Department of Correction and Valley Treatment Specialties. At this point in time, that means Mr. Sitler would not be able to reside with his wife and child in their home. We are talking 24-7 direct line-of-sight supervision. It’s not just “Hold the baby while I take a shower — hang out in the room and watch TV.” It’s not “I need to get up in the middle of the night to take care of the baby” — somebody needs to be there all the time. And I suspect that’s not going to be realistic — at least not at this point in time.

That’s the reality of where we are Your Honor. And I’m really sorry that we’re here. I truly am. But we can’t change what has occurred. And what is still troublesome is Mr. Sitler has yet to successfully complete a polygraph examination, which suggests that there is something out there that has not yet been disclosed — and we don’t know what that might be. Because it seems that every step we make, since we started this past summer, there’s been a little bit of disclosure and then a failure. And a little bit more of a disclosure, and a little bit more of a disclosure — and if Your Honor looks at where we are now with what we know, not from polygraph results but we know from Mr. Sitler’s own disclosures — from his own lips — and where we were just a month and a half ago, they don’t even compare.

Judge John Stegner

So, Your Honor, please, we ask that you do what is necessary to ensure appropriate protection for the child and afford everybody to try to move forward again. Get Mr. Sitler back in with his treatment. Get his family, his wife, back engaged with what they need to, to try to become responsible chaperones. I don’t know that they can. The last thing that they want is for him to get into trouble. It is the natural reaction of a wife or a parent to want to protect their child or their husband from getting in trouble. And by virtue of having to come before Your Honor into this courtroom, they know Mr. Sitler’s in trouble. Their incentive is not to report. I am not questioning that they are good people; they are good people. But they are people; they are human. And we see the reality as we stand here before you, Judge.