Thanks to a decision made by the Missouri Supreme Court today, a sexual predator will be kept away from the public.
The state's top court refused to hear the appeal of Michael Goddard, 32, who was committed to a state institution under a law which allows the staet to hold dangerous sexual predators.
Goddard's history left no doubt that he belonged in that category. By failing to hear the appeal, the court backed the Aug. 10 decision of the Southern District Court of Appeals which backed up Jasper County officials.
According to court records, Goddard's attorney tried to have the decision reversed, claiming that testimony given by Dr. Rinta Khan, using statistical models to show that Goddard, who has a long record of pedophilic sexual attraction to boys, would continue to commit sexual crimes if he were allowed to reenter the community.
Goddard's criminal record began at age 15, when he molested a seven-year-old boy, according to court records. Three years later, at age 18, he sodomized an 11-year-old boy, and was sentenced to four years in prison. Other molestations might have been prevented, if he had actually gone to prison. Court records indicate Goddard actually spent 50 days shock time in jail, had his sentence suspended and was placed on probation.
Part of the probation deal was that Goddard was to go through a sexual offender treatment program. He refused to do so. Finally, he was sent to the state hospital at Fulton for in-patient treatment, which also did no good because Goddard continued to refuse to participate. He also "totally lacked remorse, " according to the appellate court opinion.
Apparently, Goddard's probation officer didn't know or wasn't concerned when Goddard began to date a woman with three children under the age of 10. One month after he was released from Fulton, he admitted to molesting her son several times, according to court records, as well as molesting other boys. In November 1992, he pleaded guilty to sodomizing his girlfriend's son and was sentenced to 10 years in prison, to be served concurrently with his original four-year sentence, since he had obviously violated the terms of his probation.
During his decade in prison, he did not take part in any treatment for his problem, insisting that there was nothing wrong with him. Court records indicate he blamed others for everything he did.
***
Thanks to the Joplin Globe for bringing to the public's attention the fact that the Diamond R-4 Board of Education is considering drug testing of students who participate in extracurricular activities.
The discussion was not even mentioned in the official minutes of the meeting, which were posted on the "official" Diamond R-4 website, www.diamondwildcats.org , today. The minutes made mention of the district volleyball tournament, a new keylock system for the school buildings, and a number of minor reports, but drug testing, which brings up questions of civil rights, as well as use of taxpayer money, did not have a single word devoted to it.
The issue was also not mentioned in Superintendent Mark Mayo's Cat E-News, which was published today. Minutes of meetings are supposed to reflect what actually happened during the meeting and while the superintendent has every right to write about anything he wants to, most of his column, written on taxpayer time and on taxpayer equipment, was devoted to sports. Who knows what others things are being discussed when the Joplin Globe doesn't happen to be around?
***
One thing that had to be menitioned in the board minutes, primarily because a vote was taken, was the board's decision to spend more than $3,000 annually to a firm to help maintain the district's website. I have already written plenty about the current Diamond administration and its dealings with both its current "official" website and the site I did for the school, Wildcat Central at www.wildcatcentral.com , while I was an employee there.
I would make a strong suggestion that whoever gets the job of maintaining the website should make sure it has things in writing. Mayo and he board have a history of cheating people who have worked on creating websites for the school district.
***
I spotted a television ad for Newton County Republican sheriff candidate Kenneth Copeland during tonight's 5 p.m. news. It featured an on-air endorsement by Ron Doerge. The ad made it appear that Copeland was responsible for every good thing that had happened in law enforcement in recent years. I don't know that he wasn't, but it did seem to stretch credibility a bit. A couple of the people who appear in the Copeland ad are the same ones who have written letters recently in support of Ron Doerge. It appears that the Doerge machine is getting revved up. Despite the recent upswing in support for Copeland's opponent, Dwayne Fisher, this morning's Globe had "observers" saying that Copeland has the election safely in hand.
Who are these "observers" and why should we believe anything they say. I can understand withholding the names of sources if they could cause them to lose their jobs or put their lives in danger, but why use unnamed sources in this case? It appears to be more a case of either a gratuitous comment by the reporter or a case of lazy reporting.