Predator of Women Finds New Victim ... From Jail
Sat, 2007-10-06 21:03
#1
Predator of Women Finds New Victim ... From Jail
Sat, 2007-10-06 21:03
#2
How does Canada let this happen?
In 2002, Justice Steve Glithero sentenced Edgard Monge, then 37 years old, to 10 years in prison for 4 counts of aggravated assault. Edgard Monge knew he was HIV positive and had sex with four women. He infected two of them with HIV and also the little baby girl born to one woman.
See [url=http://www.thebody.com/content/art20678.html]article[/url] and[url=http://www.aegis.org/news/ads/2002/AD021243.html]other article[/url]
The judge says "He knowingly and repeatedly risked the very lives of four women and a child by his callous actions which persisted over months. He's largely responsible for the ruination of three lives. The effect of his actions is tragic and immense."
Edgard Monge is still behind bars. On next Friday federal authorities are letting him get married so he can qualify for conjugal visits under our [url=http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/plcy/cdshtm/770-cde_e.shtml]Visiting Directive 770[/url].
How can this be. Edgard Monge - no way I call him Mr - committed acts of violence against four women. Not with a knife gun or baseball bat - with a deadly infection. Why let him in a position to commit a new act of violence? Is this condoned?
Don't talk about rights You have no right to do violence with a knife or gun. How can you expose someone else to Hiv in a federal prison no less. This is violence against women pure and simple.
Sat, 2007-10-06 21:56
#3
Cueball
No one is forcing anyone to get married here. You would assume they know the details and either have a death wish or will be using appropriate precautions.
Sun, 2007-10-07 08:45
#4
Spoken like a man who was never a victim of anything.
Monge has her convinced he is innocent and it was all a misunderstanding. According to CSC Infections Diseases directive prison officials cannot tell anyone he is HIV +. So he is about to do again, right under prison noses, what he is jail for already: misleading sexual partners about his HIV status.
Staff see this and are disgusted but powerless. Breach of his privacy to tell the woman the truth.
Sun, 2007-10-07 08:51
#5
Forgot to add this man is classic manipulator. Sent to prison for 4 sexual relationships not just 1. All of several months not one-time stands.
Relationship periods overlapped. 1 victim was teenager.
they said he was good looking - arent they all. Good lucking scum.
Sun, 2007-10-07 09:59
#6
Cueball
You seem to have found out all about it haven't you?
Ok, so under what law are they supposed to prevent a man and a woman from getting married?
[ 07 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sun, 2007-10-07 11:21
#7
Temporary absence to go get married is discretionary. All temporary absences are discretionary, see [url=http://198.103.98.138/text/plcy/cdshtm/710-3-cd_e.shtml]CSC Directive 710-3.[/url].
Even having marriage ceremony inside is discretionary.
Conjugal visits supposed to be subject to CSC control to protect family members. Example man with history of spousal violence does not automatically have right to private time with spouse. See [url=http://198.103.98.138/text/plcy/cdshtm/770-cde_e.shtml]CSC Directive 770[/url]:
quote:
23. All inmates are eligible for private family visiting except those who are:
a. assessed as being currently at risk of becoming involved in family violence;
b. in receipt of unescorted temporary absences for family contact purposes; or
c. in a special handling unit or are awaiting decision or have been approved for transfer to a special handling unit.
This is the theory not always the practice.
What is the surprise? you act like this wedding is not common knowledge around Kingston CSC community. Of course it is. And this guys trial was a highprofile case for anyone who reads newspapers.
Sun, 2007-10-07 11:25
#8
Cueball
Right, so there is every reason to believe that the woman in question is aware that he is HIV positive.
Sun, 2007-10-07 11:31
#9
The woman believes he was wrongly convicted. That he is innocent. He has spun some tale about being jailed because sex was consensual then woman got mad and said it wasnt - yeah 10 years for a misunderstanding. Hiv never figures in his story.
There is subtle theme to your comments that this is her responsibility and choice. With respect, you do not understand victimization nor how predators take advantage of their victims. Lets see. He victimized 4 women of varying ages. I say he's likely to do it again. You seem to say if it happens again its the 5th woman's fault.
I only blame the predator never the victim.
Sun, 2007-10-07 11:37
#10
By the way - I dont know how many stories there are about telephone fraud and seniors being cheated for life savings.
But that doesn't stop there being more victims. Do you blame them or the rip off artists.
Outside prison cheating like this cant be controlled but inside prison we expect CSC to make sure inmates dont use phones and internet to victimize more people.
This is no difference. He is in for victimizing women with lies - lies of omission or comission all the same - and while inside should not be let to do it again.
Sun, 2007-10-07 11:48
#11
If she can read she probably read about this person. Maybe she is HIV positive and doesn't care.
quote:
Hiv never figures in his story.
It figured somewhere as we know about it!
Sun, 2007-10-07 11:53
#12
Cueball
So in fact there is a public record of the charges, the events, and the woman is aware of the conviction, so wether or not the CSC workers are bound by silence on the issue is irrelevant. The reason for it being so, likely other than preventing the disemination of the information, (more likely it is in place to prevent whispering campaigns possible prisoner assassinations by other prisoners, etc.?) since the information is a matter of public record.
You are absolutely right there is a theme here. And my theme is twofold:
1) The moral question, as to wether the state should have the right to intervene and aribitrate social interactions, where no coercion is used. Coercion meaning force, threat, blackmail. etc., not merely honey coated words.
At this point we are really straying into the area were the state can aribtrate which beliefs are criminal or not.
If protesting ones innocence were enough to merit extra punishment, half the prisoners in jail would be up for some kind of adminstrative measures, while those that actually are innocent(of which there are probably a few) would be having the injustice of wrongful imprisonment further compounded.
So in fact, it seems to me that we are dangerously stepping into the area of thought crime.
2) The practical manner in which such controls over social interaction, and beliefs could be managed without locking up half the population.
What next? Jail sales people for padding the truth? Make lying illegal?
[ 07 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sun, 2007-10-07 12:17
#13
"The moral question, as to wether the state should have the right to intervene and aribitrate social interactions, where no coercion is used."
A blah-blah neo-liberal meme, leveled against the very existence of a major proportion of Canadian legislation.
You read it on rabble.ca, folks.
Why do I bother?...
Sun, 2007-10-07 12:20
#14
Cueball
Well Martin, the board has been quite "liberal" with your constant distortion for the purpose of substantiating your own beliefs, not only of the easily verifiable content of public documents, but even in your post-facto editing of your posts to change the meaning of your own statements, so that you can save face.
Are you suggesting that the board should take a zero tollerance position on distortion and lying?
[ 07 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sun, 2007-10-07 12:30
#15
quote:
Originally posted by clersal:
[b]If she can read she probably read about this person. Maybe she is HIV positive and doesn't care.[/b]
in fact she is a widowed church lady. 55-65 in age, I would guess. hiv+ herself? Anything possible these days but I seriously doubt it.
No the problem is he proclaims Jesus as his lord and saviour and she thinks why would he lie? He is wrongly imprisoned (yeah right) just like Jesus was wrongly arrested. You get the idea.
If she believed newspapers she would see he met one of his 4 victims at church. But why does she need newspapers when she has the word of a born agan Christian like Monge.
As I type this I agree how she has blinds on and should wake up. But does this mean officials should just let it happen? Comes down to whether we just stand back and blame the victim.
Sun, 2007-10-07 12:44
#16
Cueball
Right. You have stumbled into the region of freedom of religious belief, and right to be an idiot.
Sun, 2007-10-07 12:53
#17
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b] but even in your post-facto editing of your posts to change the meaning of your own statements, so that you can save face.[ 07 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]
In certain circumstances,one can only take such activity as a compliment. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Sun, 2007-10-07 13:44
#18
"Post-facto editing" - Is there any other kind...?
Seriously, is it considered inappropriate here to edit a post in order to take into account a participant's feedback as I did to better focus my response to someone on another thread?
I would like an answer from a moderator.
As for the rest of Cueball's rant, the less said, the better.
Sun, 2007-10-07 13:49
#19
Cueball
I know Martin, anything like apologizing, or even saying that you misphrased your original statement in a new post, or stating that you are rephrasing something to make it more approriate in the post you edited, or any retraction of false information parlayed by you, is simply beyond you.
No. Instead, you just back edited the original. In other cases you mostly ignore or over ride anything that shows clearly you were in error.
Its typical that exceedingly arrogant people never to admit they are wrong, and end up obfuscating, as you are doing now. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 07 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sun, 2007-10-07 22:34
#20
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]I know Martin, anything like apologizing, or even saying that you misphrased your original statement in a new post, or stating that you are rephrasing something to make it more approriate in the post you edited, or any retraction of false information parlayed by you, is simply beyond you.No. Instead, you just back edited the original. In other cases you mostly ignore or over ride anything that shows clearly you were in error.
Its typical that exceedingly arrogant people never to admit they are wrong, and end up obfuscating, as you are doing now. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 07 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]
Or back editing a previous post to include Ludendorf and WWI in a discussion of Clauswitz's theories and their impact on the Prussian general staff during the unification wars. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
I took it as a compliment and considered you mildly dishonest but never arrogant. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2007-10-08 19:46
#21
Sadly and perversely some women become attracted to "dangerous men" behind bars even rapists and murderers. It's completely bizarre and repugnant to me but obviously not to some of these [url=http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_groupies/2.html... killer groupies.[/url]
Here's one of Ted Bundy's groupie who became a wife.
quote:
Many of them even looked like his victim type — girls with long brown hair, parted in the middle. Among these women, Carol Ann Boone became a rather steady girlfriend. She moved from Washington to Florida to be near Bundy, and was soon a media darling.Boone believed in Bundy's innocence and took every opportunity to describe how he was being unfairly railroaded. Then after he was convicted, she maintained her stance and during the penalty phase of his 1980 trial, she testified on his behalf.
Then came a surprise.
Bundy took advantage of an old state law that allowed a declaration in court to constitute a legal marriage. He stood up and proposed. Boone gleefully accepted, and Bundy pronounced them married.
Somehow Boone got impregnated and had his child. Some sources say it was a daughter, others a son. Some say she managed to have conjugal relations with him, others that she smuggled his semen out of the prison and was artificially inseminated. However it happened, she was clearly a woman in denial of the facts. She even managed to ignore compelling evidence that Bundy's teeth marks had been left in one of the victims. This confessed killer of more than 30 women had completely blinded her with his charm.
Yet despite their marriage, many other women still wrote to him or came to see him during the years between his conviction and 1989 execution. One of them, apparently, later married another serial killer in prison....
Finally she stopped seeing him. Nevertheless, it took eight years for her to wake up.
(Just last night I was reading about this serial killer groupie phenomena from listening to a radio program about a serial killer called the Iceman and came across this website.)
Mon, 2007-10-08 20:47
#22
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
[b]Or back editing a previous post to include Ludendorf and WWI in a discussion of Clauswitz's theories and their impact on the Prussian general staff during the unification wars. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
I took it as a compliment and considered you mildly dishonest but never arrogant. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
I remember this conversation. I didn't change the content. I added to it. There is a difference. Including Ludendorf, is [i]including[/i] Ludendorfn in a discussion of Clauzewitz. I didn't change or edit out things that I said about Clauszewitz, except perhaps for punctuation. This is an issue of cross-posting, not changing the meaning of the content.
I don't read peoples responses, and then change my posts to adjust the meaning, which is what Martin freely admits to doing. I had not even read your response, but was editing my own to expand on my theme.
[ 08 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Tue, 2007-10-09 00:41
#23
There's no saving people from their own stupidity if they're really determined.
Tue, 2007-10-09 01:06
#24
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by mary123:
[b]Sadly and perversely some women become attracted to "dangerous men" behind bars even rapists and murderers. It's completely bizarre and repugnant to me but obviously not to some of these [url=http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_groupies/2.html... killer groupies.[/url]Here's one of Ted Bundy's groupie who became a wife.
(Just last night I was reading about this serial killer groupie phenomena from listening to a radio program about a serial killer called the Iceman and came across this website.)[/b]
This is a very weird phenomena. What is its pyschological mechanism, do you think?
Tue, 2007-10-09 08:00
#25
quote:
I had not even read your response, but was editing my own to expand on my theme.
Fair enough,cross-posting happens all the time.
Tue, 2007-10-09 08:18
#26
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]This is a very weird phenomena. What is its pyschological mechanism, do you think?[/b]
Operant conditioning to "rescuing" poor down trodden men or perhaps Stockholm Syndrome?
Tue, 2007-10-09 08:26
#27
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]This is a very weird phenomena. What is its pyschological mechanism, do you think?[/b]
I have no idea. Maybe these women are attracted to "bad boys" and have an idealized image of their innocence against all evidence (and are therefore in deep denial).
That said I agree with Unhappy at CSC who started this thread. We do have to protect some people and I would not allow this criminal with Aids the privilege of getting married and conjugal visitation rights. Yes we do have to protect some of these women who are in deep denial for whatever reason. I would not allow marriage and no conjugal visitation rights allowed for criminals with Aids. It's sick and disgusting.
Here's another example of a woman attracted to a serial killer who was allowed to marry but not allowed conjugal visitation rights.
quote:
The bride, Doreen Lioy, age 41, was a freelance magazine editor with a bachelor's degree in English and an I.Q. of 152. The groom, serial killer and rapist Richard Ramirez, was on Death Row, awaiting execution.
[url=http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/ramirez/terror_1.ht... in love with serial killers[/url]
Tue, 2007-10-09 09:30
#28
Because of my job, I've known a couple of women who are attracted to jailbirds. There seems to be a combination of self-esteem problems and total denial that the guy did what he was convicted for.
And look at the bride of Richard Ramirez, a talented and intelligent woman, who nonetheless was a virgin at the age of 41. Not that all virgins are social misfits, but frankly, most of them are.
Thu, 2007-10-11 18:43
#29
Thanks for the feedback. It seems many who are more depraved than Monge have attracted groupies, and wed.
Tomorrow, Friday, wedding bells are going to ring in Kingston for Mr. and Mrs. Monge. (Actually, don't know if she take his name. Cant imagine why she would but then again she's marrying him isn't she.)
How I wish those bells won't become her death knell.
Thu, 2007-10-11 19:02
#30
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by mary123:
[b]
That said I agree with Unhappy at CSC who started this thread. We do have to protect some people and I would not allow this criminal with Aids the privilege of getting married and conjugal visitation rights. Yes we do have to protect some of these women who are in deep denial for whatever reason. I would not allow marriage and no conjugal visitation rights allowed for criminals with Aids. It's sick and disgusting. [/b]
My experience with interventions is that they usually do not work, until the person is willing to ask for help in some way. So, I guess I just have a knee jerk reaction to imposing things on people. It's more or less policy for me -- "you can lead a camel to water but... "
I don't really know how I would personally handle this situation.
[ 11 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Fri, 2007-10-12 13:30
#31
I like Cueball's honesty,"I don't know how I would personally handle this situation". Let's face it, highly controversial issue and there's really no absolutely correct answer or right thing to do, to please everyone.
"Unhappy at CSC"'s discussion point, while certainly of interest and up for debate, is of less interest to me than this individual's need to breach the confidentialty that she promised to maintain as a federal government employee. We all know that the federal government is a pretty good employer, not perfect, but well beyond the standards of your average private sector employer. If "Unhappy" needs to vent her distain for a particular situation or issue, please, be my guest; but maintain a little integrity and leave the names and personal information out. I am trying to understand your motivation for breaching someone's privacy, is it the feeling of power knowing things that others don't? Is this attenion-getting behavior supposed to be revenge against your employer? Weird.
A little advice.. if you don't like your job, go and find another one...good luck finding one as good as what you have now.
Fri, 2007-10-12 13:41
#32
Whoa - you mean, all the stuff Unhappy at CSC has been posting in this thread is confidential stuff s/he learned at work?
I haven't been following this thread very closely. Is this public information you're posting here, or is this private information you've received at work??
Fri, 2007-10-12 13:43
#33
Cueball
Well, not really, actually since she/he has sourced all their material to public sources for the most part.
Fri, 2007-10-12 14:05
#34
I don't see that CSC has done that at all. He or she has given us tons and tons of personal information about both the convict and his fiancee, and about their relationship. I don't see any links to anywhere that this personal information about the couple has been posted publicly.
What I do know, however, is that prisoners have every single page of their outgoing and incoming mail read by guards and security officials. I know that this sort of information is kept in each prisoners' files.
If what's being posted here in this thread is information learned from sources like that, then not only am I appalled, but outraged at such a breach of privacy. I would like clarification as soon as possible. If CSC cannot provide public sources for all this personal information, then not only will I delete all of the references to it from his or her posts, but I will also ban his or her account.
Fri, 2007-10-12 14:08
#35
Cueball
Ok, I was throwing out smoke. Sorry.
The first parts are referenced.
Fri, 2007-10-12 14:19
#36
I could find nothing on the internet to verify the information she has posted here. This is clearly internal information.
I'm going to lock this thread and her account so that nothing can be edited until I resolve this, and consult with the others at rabble over it. Unhappy at CSC, if you're reading this and would like to make any clarifications, you can e-mail me at michelleATrabbleDOTca.
[ 12 October 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Fri, 2007-10-12 14:24
#37
Cueball
Well, you should wait until there is a response to your enquirey, I think. Also, there is an element of whistleblowing in this and its not as if this entirely an issue without cause. There is no way to tell by what means this information was obtained.
Sun, 2007-10-14 03:33
#38
Okay, I've got a response from Unhappy At CSC. As it turns out, she's unhappy WITH CSC. She's not AT CSC. In other words, she's not an employee. She got the information from another source, which she can explain to you herself if she so chooses. And she says, truthfully, that since she did not identify the bride, and that since marriage is a public act, she has not done anything wrong.
I tend to agree with her assessment. So I'm opening this thread and unlocking her account. I apologize, Unhappy At CSC.
[ 14 October 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Sun, 2007-10-14 06:12
#39
Ok Michelle, you've got the power.
Your INITIAL response to all the confidential information that Unhappy AT CSC disclosed was correct. Her information is current, personal, likely unreliable and certainly not a matter of public record. How could the age of the alleged fiancee, where they met or the precise date of this alleged pass to get married be public record??? I note the handle is Unhappy AT CSC and not USED TO BE UNHAPPY at CSC, you have obviously been lied to. Who wouldn't anonomously lie on line to get themselves out of trouble? Come on Michelle, let's use our heads here.
And now that Unhappy AT CSC has told you she does not work for CSC (are you able to verify this? I doubt it) and obtains her information "second-hand" from someone who obviously DOES work for CSC and is inappropriately and wrongly sharing confidential information, everything is fine. Wow...ok Michelle.
What next, the name, address and phone number of the private citizen that this individual is allegedly engaged to? The location of the alleged wedding so a mob can congregate outside the location and harass or harm these people?
If you cannot see that this is an obvious leak from someone who enjoys the power of having this kind of information (or thinking they have it) and sharing it with others while criticizing her employer for allowing this to happen (if indeed it is, has anyone checked for wedding bells in Kingston...I think if they did they would find Unhappy's information to be complete hogwash).
If this leak does result in someone being personaly harassed or harmed, in the community or otherwise, you are resposible Michelle for allowing this nonsense to go on.
Again, this is not about a wedding....it is about someone being in a position of authority and her abuse of power in sharing confidential and personal information about others that is dangerous if not factual. It is about the privacy and safety of individuals and their right to the safeguard of their PERSONAL (not public) information. Remember, this is not all about an inmate, it is more about the privacy and safety of a member of the community...what did she do to deserve this??
A final note for our disgruntled employee...as you well know, there are ways to determine who has accessed inmate files and I have already "leaked" your blog to your employer as I am concerned about your violations and the safety of others. If I were you, I would be lying very low for a while and frankly, shitting bricks that I might be caught in this blatant and serious violation of my conditions of employment.
Sun, 2007-10-14 06:18
#40
quote:
Originally posted by Waterbaby:
[b]And now that Unhappy AT CSC has told you she does not work for CSC (are you able to verify this? I doubt it) and obtains her information "second-hand" from someone who obviously DOES work for CSC and is inappropriately and wrongly sharing confidential information, everything is fine. Wow...ok Michelle.[/b]
No. She said she obtained the information through other channels, not through any employee at CSC. If you think about it for a couple of minutes, you can probably think of a whole ton of places she could have gotten the information besides from correctional services workers. After all, the bride isn't in jail, and apparently goes to church. Marriages are public events. And the bride was not identified in any way other than her age and the fact that she goes to church. That would describe several million Canadian women.
Think about it.
[ 14 October 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Sun, 2007-10-14 06:38
#41
As there had been no marriage when the blog was posted, how is the marriage a matter of public record??? Do you even know if a marriage has occurred as of this date?? NOT. Where then is your public record Michelle? Good luck finding record of something that has never taken place.
Again Michelle, wow.
Are you sure that Unhappy AT CSC is not lying to you about her place of employment? NO Is Unhappy AT CSC's handle a lie?? YES (or so she says) Hmmmm Michelle, Unhappy AT CSC is highly credible so far.
Do you vet Unhappy's blogs before they are published?? NO.
Can you assure me that Unhappy will not post personal information such as name, address, locations, dates, etc.; as her history so far is repeated postings of personal information?? NO
If you allow this to continue, are you then partly responsible for these blatant violations of privacy and their possible impact; in terms of safety, security and reputation; on community citizens?? YESSSS
Think about it Michelle, this is becoming tiresome.
Sun, 2007-10-14 06:55
#42
All marriages are a matter of public record. Marriage licenses, publishing of banns, whatever. Marriages are public and they're a matter of public record. The woman who has married this man has not been identified, and the person who started this thread has assured me that she was quite careful not to post anything that would help people identify her. As for this man, well, he's a public figure due to the crime he has committed. She has agreed to marry this man, and marriage is public. We have not posted her name or address or anything else that could actually identify her, but I think people have to expect that if they marry someone notorious, and if they tell the people around them (like, oh, say, friends at church?) about it, then she is going to be known at least by some people as the woman who married an HIV-positive man who was convicted of giving the disease to other unwitting victims.
If she does post any information about the bride that could lead to people finding them or disrupting their lives, then I will erase it immediately and lock the account. She has assured me that she has no intention of doing so, and we don't pre-emptively ban people from posting here based on what bad things they MIGHT post at some point.
In any case, I'm consulting with the rest of the staff of the web site on this issue, and I'm directing them to this thread, so I'm glad you've posted your point of view on this. We will all read it and consider it.
[ 14 October 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]