Former Member bill barton

[7/4]

thanks for looking at Wiki for me, I don't need to know anymore details.

[mikeweil]

I mean, the more we learn about behavior, the more it seems to come down to electric impulses and different chemicals.

...

That feels good, it sizzles, but...I think we can and should do better than just sizzle.

That's the point - I'm afraid many people use these scientific explanations only to avoid the human individual's responsibility for their behavior, like "It's my DNA (or whatever) doing this, there's nothing I can't help it". We are much more than cells, that's one of the few things I'm really sure about. And the more humankind evolves, the more responsibility it has to take.

I can't see how one can feel the desire to abuse children. No way. I say forgiveness shoudl be unconditional, but that's a high ideal, and I do not know I could forgive such things if it happened in my neighbourhood. Probably not. And this forum happens to be part of my heighbourhood.

[Chuck Nessa]

Just keep them away from kids.

[JSngry]

I mean, the more we learn about behavior, the more it seems to come down to electric impulses and different chemicals.

...

That feels good, it sizzles, but...I think we can and should do better than just sizzle.

That's the point - I'm afraid many people use these scientific explanations only to avoid the human individual's responsibility for their behavior, like "It's my DNA (or whatever) doing this, there's nothing I can't help it". We are much more than cells, that's one of the few things I'm really sure about. And the more humankind evolves, the more responsibility it has to take.

A reason is not an excuse.

Nothing makes it "ok", and people do have to accept responsibilities for their actions. That never needs to not be the case.

But - it also never needs to be the case that we stop trying to find out they whys/hows/etc.

[Utevsky]

I know Bill Barton from our time together at KBCS and from seeing him at numerous live performances in the Seattle area. He has always seemed to be a warm and compassionate person. I am as shocked as anyone at the allegations that have been made against him. It's true, as others have said, that we rarely know anyone so well that we wouldn't be surprised by their secrets. But somehow none of this seems to fit with Bill.

Allegations are just allegations, whether they're made in a newspaper article or in a federal indictment. These allegations could be wrong for any number of reasons, so we need to maintain a healthy skepticism. We haven't heard Bill's side of the story. He is innocent unless AND until he is convicted.

Someone pointed out that he could be acquitted at a trial because the government hasn't proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt -- and yet he might still have committed the crimes as charged. That's true in any case. A verdict of "not guilty" does not actually mean "innocent." But we shouldn't get ahead of the game. At this point, we haven't seen any of the evidence against Bill. We should try to keep an open mind -- and, of course, hope that the government is mistaken in this case.

[Chuck Nessa]

At this point, we haven't seen any of the evidence against Bill.

Not entirely true. You can search out the legal papers online. They "have him" for at least 3 uploads to the Dreamboard site.

[AllenLowe]

I think we all hope there's something unknown here which will exonerate Bill. But I'm not optimistic.

[fasstrack]

Not ever having interacted with this person, and realizing the seriousness of the offense---whether or not he was involved---I can only think of a few things regarding trust:

I myself have had varied experience with people met on the web once I knew them in a non-cyber way. I let my guard down because I'm pretty open and trusting. A few times I was seriously burned. You really don't know who you're dealing with and the web provides one of the world's great covers for liars and two-live-livers. One has to look at this guy's tale---while presuming innocence and using compassion in trying to understand and not rush to judge---as a cautionary one. Don't believe everything you read. There are sick people out in cyberspace fooling a lot of people. We all let our guards down when in a community of people sharing our interests, etc.

On the other hand I've met and interacted with wonderful people in the jazz cyber-world. Lazaro Vega (who I knew a little before) for one. I've been to his home and interviewed by him at Blue Lake. Great human being and jazz person. Peter Johnson drove a considerable distance to come see a little gig of mine and bought me a drink. Larry Kart is as thoughtful a jazz person as I've encountered. I think one can be trusting and appreciative of people and guarded---maybe jaded is a more realistic word---at the same time. Owing to the complexity of people nothing good or bad surprises me in human behavior so I neither judge (at least I try not to, I'm frickin' human too) nor am shocked.

Reluctant as I am to reopen the religion---yeah, specifically Christian---can of worms here all I can say as a life-long agnostic of equally lifelong spiritual curiosity is that there's only a one letter difference between God and good. If someone is good that's enough for me. Humans ought to be as perfectly human as possible. Everyone is gonna slip. It's the getting up that make us a great race. If someone lives a good life and gains strength from what I may consider fantasy or superstition all I try to see is the good. That's an oddly Christian view from a non-believer, I know, but it works for me. Among the many friends I've been blessed with is a Christian woman of IMO world-class beauty, outer and inner. She is a supportive friend, perfect daughter and sister, etc. Trying to do good in the world, despite frailties, and that's the point. Throughout our many get-togethers over 14 years up to as recently as Monday she has never forced her beliefs on me or guilt-tripped, threatened eternal damnnation, etc. We just enjoy and love each other to death, period. She has prayed for me, and I am down with and moved by that because it just shows her love. So judge Christians or Santaria sacrificers alike by deeds not words say I.

I am tempted, having said these things, to pray---however a guy like myself could---for Bill's soul. To be accused and in prison, guilty or innocent, is another form of terrible victimization. If you did it you've victimized yourself as much as the actual victims. If innocent you are the only victim. So never having met the man and loving children mostly because they are people, however vulnerable, I will try to keep a good thought for him and them.

And keep open to but watchful of Internet friends. Bless all of you. You are a great bunch.

(edited for grammar. JF)

Edited August 25, 2011 by fasstrack

[Utevsky]

At this point, we haven't seen any of the evidence against Bill.

Not entirely true. You can search out the legal papers online. They "have him" for at least 3 uploads to the Dreamboard site.

The only "legal papers" I've seen online are the indictment and the superseding indictment. Perhaps you saw something else, Chuck, like an affidavit with exhibits that document the uploads. But the indictment itself is not evidence; it is just factual allegations by the prosecutors. This is not merely a technical distinction.

[Chuck Nessa]

I also wish it isn't true.

[.:.impossible]

I think it should go without saying, but I'm sure we all do. All of it.

[Jazzmoose]

I myself have had varied experience with people met on the web once I knew them in a non-cyber way. I let my guard down because I'm pretty open and trusting. A few times I was seriously burned. You really don't know who you're dealing with and the web provides one of the world's great covers for liars and two-live-livers. One has to look at this guy's tale---while presuming innocence and using compassion in trying to understand and not rush to judge---as a cautionary one. Don't believe everything you read. There are sick people out in cyberspace fooling a lot of people. We all let our guards down when in a community of people sharing our interests, etc.

You know, my first reaction when this thread popped up was how none of us really know each other if we've only met on line, but I realize now that, none of us really know each other anyway. No one who would be involved in something like this is going to accidentally drop a hint in the conversation if you're "not in the club".

[fasstrack]

I myself have had varied experience with people met on the web once I knew them in a non-cyber way. I let my guard down because I'm pretty open and trusting. A few times I was seriously burned. You really don't know who you're dealing with and the web provides one of the world's great covers for liars and two-live-livers. One has to look at this guy's tale---while presuming innocence and using compassion in trying to understand and not rush to judge---as a cautionary one. Don't believe everything you read. There are sick people out in cyberspace fooling a lot of people. We all let our guards down when in a community of people sharing our interests, etc.

You know, my first reaction when this thread popped up was how none of us really know each other if we've only met on line, but I realize now that, none of us really know each other anyway. No one who would be involved in something like this is going to accidentally drop a hint in the conversation if you're "not in the club".

Probably so, but I hope you continued to read all of what I wrote. It was much more conciliatory and wide ranging in view about all of this stuff. That first paragraph alone makes it look pretty dark and the whole post was anything but.

But your point is well-taken.

[PHILLYQ]

One thought that keeps going through my mind is that in cases of crimes such as what's alleged against Bill Barton the feds usually won't even proceed to an indictment unless they have an airtight case. I haven't reviewed any evidence and I don't know what the feds have in this particular case, so I can't really judge at this juncture but I can't help but think that thought.

[fasstrack]

Another would be that even if he walks he will be tainted by the accusation for the rest of his life. If guilty he'll in like fashion step up in status and be tainted with the truth. A pretty horrible prison in itself, wouldn't you say?

I wonder also now if the mere accusation of a sex offense, not an actual conviction, can legally bar someone from living in a chosen neighborhood? If so, is this un-American at the core? Call me naive, but I have a problem with non-violent ex-offenders becoming hated, shunned, nomads. This is not only out of compassion for a tormented soul, but because rehabilitation can happen when the offender really wants it to IMO. And it also, in a perfect world, is a cornerstone of a sane, compassionate criminal justice system. To quote that lovably scruffy philosopher the pets.com dog: 'Everyone deserves a second chance'.

Edited August 29, 2011 by fasstrack

[Chuck Nessa]

Multiple news reports say he was already a registered offender.

[marcello]

I'm thinking this is a mix up with another William Barton from somewhere in the South.

That's what I saw when I did a little internet sleuthing.

[Chuck Nessa]

Look again.

[Big Wheel]

I'm thinking this is a mix up with another William Barton from somewhere in the South.

That's what I saw when I did a little internet sleuthing.

Perhaps you could share the sites you have sleuthed and your reasoning that this is a case of mistaken identity? Unless the news reports are getting it very badly wrong, the Bill Barton we know was the one arrested in Washington, he was a registered offender, his alleged screen name is the same as the Youtube screen name of someone who likes some pretty niche jazz, and his disappearance matches the time of his arrest. And Chuck has apparently found his mugshot, so it doesn't seem likely that the "mistaken identity" could be on the part of anyone but the authorities.

Given that there are over 700,000 registered sex offenders in the US I would think that "let's double-check and make sure we're arresting the right offender by this name" would be rather standard procedure for law enforcement. Is there some reason you have to doubt this beyond "it can't possibly be the Bill Barton we know because he was such a nice guy"?

Edited August 29, 2011 by Big Wheel

[Hot Ptah]

Another would be that even if he walks he will be tainted by the accusation for the rest of his life. If guilty he'll in like fashion step up in status and be tainted with the truth. A pretty horrible prison in itself, wouldn't you say?

I wonder also now if the mere accusation of a sex offense, not an actual conviction, can legally bar someone from living in a chosen neighborhood? If so, is this un-American at the core? Call me naive, but I have a problem with non-violent ex-offenders becoming hated, shunned, nomads. This is not only out of compassion for a tormented soul, but because rehabilitation can happen when the offender really wants it to IMO. And it also, in a perfect world, is a cornerstone of a sane, compassionate criminal justice system. To quote that lovably scruffy philosopher the pets.com dog: 'Everyone deserves a second chance'.

I found that I had a different view about "non-violent ex-offenders" when I found that a registered sex offender lived two blocks from my six year daughter's elementary school.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Hot Ptah

[fasstrack]

Another would be that even if he walks he will be tainted by the accusation for the rest of his life. If guilty he'll in like fashion step up in status and be tainted with the truth. A pretty horrible prison in itself, wouldn't you say?

I wonder also now if the mere accusation of a sex offense, not an actual conviction, can legally bar someone from living in a chosen neighborhood? If so, is this un-American at the core? Call me naive, but I have a problem with non-violent ex-offenders becoming hated, shunned, nomads. This is not only out of compassion for a tormented soul, but because rehabilitation can happen when the offender really wants it to IMO. And it also, in a perfect world, is a cornerstone of a sane, compassionate criminal justice system. To quote that lovably scruffy philosopher the pets.com dog: 'Everyone deserves a second chance'.

I found that I had a different view about "non-violent ex-offenders" when I found that a registered sex offender lived two blocks from my six year daughter's elementary school.

I understand. If I had a daughter I'd feel the same way.

[marcello]

I'm thinking this is a mix up with another William Barton from somewhere in the South.

That's what I saw when I did a little internet sleuthing.

Perhaps you could share the sites you have sleuthed and your reasoning that this is a case of mistaken identity? Unless the news reports are getting it very badly wrong, the Bill Barton we know was the one arrested in Washington, he was a registered offender, his alleged screen name is the same as the Youtube screen name of someone who likes some pretty niche jazz, and his disappearance matches the time of his arrest. And Chuck has apparently found his mugshot, so it doesn't seem likely that the "mistaken identity" could be on the part of anyone but the authorities.

Given that there are over 700,000 registered sex offenders in the US I would think that "let's double-check and make sure we're arresting the right offender by this name" would be rather standard procedure for law enforcement. Is there some reason you have to doubt this beyond "it can't possibly be the Bill Barton we know because he was such a nice guy"?

You're reading too much into my brief statement. I'm not saying Bill isn't the guy in the indictment.

There's a data base, by State, for registered sex offenders. It's easy to look it up.

Here's one of at least two guys named William Barton:

Creep

[Big Wheel]

Yes. In fact a Google search turns up at least 4 or 5 sex offenders with that name. Again, there are over 700000 sex offenders in this country. The authorities must run into cases where there are multiple offenders with the same name all the time. Do you have any reason for believing that there is a general failure in police procedures around this, leading to massive numbers of false arrests, or a specific failure in police procedures in this case?

[Niko]

admittedly, the one thing i am not so sure of is whether "our" Bill Barton was really a registered sex offender... he doesn't seem to be in any of the databases and iirc i only read/heard about that through media reports but not through anything official - but then maybe he was deleted upon arrest...

anyway, i find it encouraging that those who knew Bill personally tend to be even more shocked than the rest - shows that this is not a thing about "internet acquaintances" or the like...

Edited August 30, 2011 by Niko

[Hot Ptah]

I have a personal experience about a business friend, an extrememly nice, courteous guy, who was arrested for arranging online to meet a 14 year old girl at a mall for sex, but when he got there, he was swarmed by FBI agents. This guy is the last person you would expect to do something like this. He is married with children. He is known as a scholarly, quiet, thoughtful, meticulous professional by all in the field, and one of the easiest people to work with in a business deal because of his extraordinarily pleasant nature. He worked for a very prominent, important business, and his family includes a high ranking Judge.

When it came out in the newspapers that he was caught for his offense, everyone who knew him professionally was shocked--the typical reactions were that it just couldn't be him, that he would be the last person you would expect would do something like this.

I think that it is more common than we might think that we do not really know the people we know personally, not to mention those we know online.