19 Comments

1. The notion that Steven Sitler’s imaginary friends include a mysterious vanishing lady in a bikini whose apparent seductive beauty forced him to park near her house and watch for her is patently disgusting, and likely untrue. Most folks would call that stalking — as indeed it is. We probably all agree he knows a thing or two about stalking.
   A more likely scenario, as far as I am concerned is this: he wanted an excuse to cruise by Moscow’s swimming pool (which is located on the far eastern side of town) to drool over the kiddies there. During a summer day at noon time the patrons are primarily children taking swimming lessons or splashing around with their pals. The thought of pedophile Sitler hanging out watching precious children with his sick fantasies makes me what to vomit. If he has/had a polygraph coming up and wondered if he would be questioned about being at inappropriate places his simple-minded narrative, would allow him to answer in the affirmative that he had “driven by” the Aquatic Center.
   Almost as upsetting is his declaration that he claims he couldn’t stop thinking about bikini woman and wanted to meet her. Apparently he didn’t give a hoot how that declaration would sound to his wife or how she would feel reading about it. Perhaps her foolishness in marrying him will finally start to dawn on her. Since it is debatable that she is an appropriate chaperone for her husband (thanks to the doctrine of male headship taught by Christ Church) perhaps playing second fiddle to an imaginary woman will cause her to pack her bags, grab her baby and flee from a toxic, dangerous situation — or sadly, not.

   Rose Huskey

   1. Did he mention the age of the ‘woman’ in a bikini? I may be completely off-base but, since they make bikinis for toddlers, it is entirely possible that he was driving by a house and saw a little girl, in a bikini, playing in her kiddie pool, which was located in her front yard. That would be (mostly) factually true, enough to pass a lie detector test, and still would account for his obsessing for the rest of the day as well as his drive to the Moscow pool (to see if she was taken there since she was no longer in her front yard).

2. Sitler’s statement follows that pattern in Doug Wilson’s quote about using the first lie to get people to swallow the second. The first lie about the bikini woman gives him a semi-plausible (but still gross) reason to drive by the pool — he was looking for an adult woman who might have headed to the pool since she was dressed for it.

   If you assume all of that is a lie and remove it from the narrative, what you have is Steve Sitler driving by the swimming pool where half-naked kids hang out and doing so for no apparent reason. The only logical explanation for that, in absence of bikini woman, is that he was gratifying his desire to leer at children. Far more gross. And dangerous. And unfortunately likely.

   The first lie is his excuse for his behavior prompting the second lie.

   1. He had to drive right past a school too.

3. I keep saying that nothing surprises me anymore about this case, and I’ve not been proven wrong yet.

   I’d like to know if Sitler reported this because he knows that someone spotted him in the area around the pool and he figured he’d be better off “fessing up” to a plausible story before someone filed a report.

   It would be nice if the person who spotted him came forward, but even if they still have “natural affection,” they may be understandably afraid to do so.

4. Lainie, I was thinking the same thing. He believed he may have been observed while doing some “observing” of his own, and issued a preemptive reason. A reason that would still be disturbing.

5. Is he not still married?

   1. Yes, he is still married, though their union remains the pedophiliac equivalent of a lavender marriage.

   2. Just to be clear, this pedophile is not a homosexual, so calling his marriage a lavender marriage is not really correct. Lavender marriages are defined as male/female (straight, hetersexual) marriages that are intended by one or both parties to mask homosexuality.
      I just want to be clear about disassociating pedophilia with homosexuality.
      Thank you!

   3. Hi Rebecca — Correct. We know there is no relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia, and we posted a very long piece by the Mayo Clinic that debunks that position. The moral equivalence was between the marriage of convenience and not the orientation.

6. I expect Wilson to blog about this soon. And somehow spin it as completely normal – or acceptable enough for Steveophile to continue as a member in good standing, taking communion. Because hey…abortion.

   1. And boobs. Boobs in a bikini, even. Wilson probably sees this as progress.

   2. Probably true. “He’s stepped up to a better class of sin!!!”

      Somehow committing adultery by lusting after a women in his heart is better than committing some other sin by lusting after children.

7. He told me after purchasing his lunch, he returned to the area he had seen the female, however she was no longer visible, he parked there and ate his lunch and continued thinking about her and hoped to meet her. She did not reappear and he drove to the area of the Moscow swimming pool, did not see anything that interested him, did not stop and continued on his way. [Emphasis is mine. SL]

   It should sadly come as no surprise to anyone with even a modicum of understanding about fixated pedophile sex offenders that Steven James Sitler has continued to engage in high risk behavior – in violation of a common-sense understanding of the terms of his lifetime probation — within our community.

   More than a decade of intensive treatment and supervision have failed to make Sitler any safer to live in a free society than he was prior to conviction.

   While it’s difficult to fathom someone being sexually aroused by a child, particularly by one’s own infant, one could argue that his voluntary disclosures earlier this month about things he did in the dog days of an August summer represent an escalation of his deviant and predatory behaviors.

   Also, I find it telling and even suspicious Sitler didn’t report his latest deviancy to his probation officer until after the close of this summer’s weekday swim hours. One reasonable interpretation might be that he didn’t want to blow a “preferred” lunchtime perv haunt.

   Further, I certainly hope Sitler’s probation officer compelled him to disclose the specific residence of the female he fixated on to warn her she hit the radar of a convicted sex offender so that she can take extra safety precautions. To me, it is unconscionable to not give the person a head’s up so she can try her best to protect herself from a convicted sex offender.

   Finally, I hope Sitler’s latest deviancy will finally put to rest once and for all the stupid notion — as argued by Sitler’s attorneys and accepted by Judge Stegner — that giving Sitler what he wants is good for his “relapse prevention.” After over a decade of treatment and intensive supervision, this community is left with a predator who still doesn’t avoid his known triggers and in fact actively pursues triggers. If any of that sounds eerily familiar, it should because engaging in illegal and high risk behaviors is exactly what Sitler did less than a month after being released to lifetime probation.

   IMHO, Sitler is what he is: he’s a predatory and deviant sex offender with scores of victim-survivors. His behavior has affirmed that fact time and again. Last year, it was being sexually stimulated by his own infant son.

   Now this.

   I think it’s long past time for the criminal justice system to recognize the very real and demonstrated danger that is Steven Sitler. Barring voluntary chemical or physical castration, no community will ever be safe with him footloose and fancy free to continue to stealthily pursue his predatory and deviant sexual appetites at every opportunity.

   Including his lunch breaks from work, for Pete’s sake!

8. So … fixating on an adult female isn’t against his terms of probation, the pool is a facility and therefore not a park and not against his terms of probation, and he didn’t deviate from his allowed travel guidelines, what exactly was he needing to report?

   1. I’m absolutely certain he reported just in case someone filed a complaint that they had seen him parked out in front of the pool. Basic CYA: get your BS story in ahead of someone else’s legitimate phone call.

9. This is what disturbed me most about his statement: “he drove to the area of the Moscow swimming pool, did not see anything that interested him”

   What does he mean “he did not see anything that interested him”?

   No kids at the pool? Not young enough? Not out where he could fixate?

   1. Exactly. Not “did not see the ‘woman in a bikini’ who was the pretext for driving to the pool.” Just “did not see anything that interested him.” As though he needed to indirectly deny the real reason he drove to the pool without actually saying, “did not see any children that interested him.” It’s a poker tell — or telegraph — what the law calls “consciousness of guilt.”

   2. It’s the Sitler version of a false flag operation. His real focus is children playing at the pool, of course. Meanwhile, because he sees life through a predator’s eyes, what he’s trying to pretend is normal heterosexual interest in a woman in a bikini (feigned or real) has predatory stalking elements.

      I hope he and Katie both have to take polygraphs and soon.

Comments are closed.