.

24 East Bay Cases Of Suspected Sexual Abuse In Boy Scouts' Files

As part of the settlement in a multi-million-dollar sex abuse case, files containing information on thousands of possible crimes were released Thursday.

There are 24 cases of possible sexual abuse in 14 East Bay communities by Boy Scout troop leaders and volunteers listed in the organization's sexual abuse files released Thursday to the public.

Four of the cases were from Alameda while three were from Berkeley. Two cases each were listed from Walnut Creek, Concord, Livermore, Hayward and Oakland.

The communities of Danville, Pleasanton, Union City, Piedmont, Silverado Canyon, Richmond and El Sobrante were listed as having one case each.

The cases are found on a map included in documents put together by the Los Angeles Times.

For decades, the Boy Scouts of America kept the files as a way to keep volunteers suspected of inappopriate sexual behavior away from children. The cases were not shared with parents or police.

The files became public Thursday as part of an $18.5 million settlement between the Boy Scouts and a victim.

A psychiatrist who reviewed the files and testified on the Boy Scouts' behalf in the trial that led to the release of the files, found that 60 percent of the cases were already reported in various forms of public documents, including newspaper articles and police reports. 

The Los Angeles Times has created a list of the cases by year, city, state and troop number. The newspaper's list includes the time period covered by today's release (1965 to 1985), but also other accusations and documents gathered and released in various court cases.

Here are the 24 East Bay cases listed in the Los Angeles Times' documents. In all but one case, the suspected sexual abuser is listed only by a number. The one possible suspect named is George William Leavitt, in a case file from 1973 in Berkeley.

In some cases, the suspects were convicted of sex crimes. In others, they were only suspected.

The dates are the years a file was begun by the Boy Scouts, not necessarily the year an incident took place.

Alameda: 1959, troop number 56

Alameda: 2003, troop number 11

Alameda: 2003, troop number 2

Alameda: 2003, troop number 101

Berkeley: 1973, troop number 20

Berkeley: 1988, troop number 22

Berkeley: 1990, troop number 22

Concord: 1969, troop number 495

Concord: 1969, troop number 465

Danville: 2004, troop number 36

El Sobrante: 1989, troop number 146

Hayward: 1993, troop number 5816

Hayward: 1993, troop number 5816

Livermore: 1986, troop number 999

Livermore: 1993, troop number 919

Oakland:  1966. troop number 201

Oakland: 1987, troop number 452 

Piedmont: 1958, troop number 5

Pleasanton: 1996, troop number 913

Richmond: 1966, troop number 132

Silverado Canyon: 1994, troop number 9613

Union City: 1987, troop number 273

Walnut Creek: 1966, troop number 89

Walnut Creek: 1989, troop number 2811

 

Patch editor Chris Winston contributed to this report.

HeresWhereMyNameGoes October 19, 2012 at 10:58 PM
Tom, don't know if you're from Moraga or not but out there it won't be about fiscal issues. In Moraga it'll be a referendum on dogs.
Tom October 19, 2012 at 10:59 PM
I have never run into the issue. I could care less about anyones sexuality. It is NOT my concern. My concern is simple. No bullying, keep the kids safe, help them grow as young men and have fun along the way as they serve others.
Tom October 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM
Well I dont have a dog but I do love them. Not a big pitbull fan though....
David Mills (Editor) October 20, 2012 at 12:56 AM
Folks: A few comments have been deleted because they were just personal attacks and responses to those attacks. There are plenty of issues to discuss here. Let's keep it to that.
lisa October 20, 2012 at 01:06 AM
@hereswheremynamegoes.....Parents to blame? Back in the 60's, 70's, even 80's parents didn't do much because these kinds of things were swept under the rug, not thought about much, and there wasn't the awareness that we have nowadays. Child predators are so skilled at grooming their victims that children rarely have the maturity and self awareness to speak up when they are scared or confused. They are the VICTIMS and most parents back in those days had no idea, because it wasn't a subject that people discussed AT ALL. Parents never discussed these sorts of issues with their children.!and children didn't say a word because we didn't even use the correct terminology for body parts back then! My parents certainly didn't know much about these kinds of things. Now we all know how to look for signs, talk to children, recognize suspicious behaviors and warning signs from perpetrators. We are more informed now, thank goodness. Knowing how most people over 40 grew up, nobody knew---it wasn't front page news all the time, and culturally, people just had no idea that this sort of thing even happened. Naive? Perhaps. It wasn't discussed in depth.
Frank Mockery October 20, 2012 at 03:35 AM
You must be kidding;sex is all that most normal healthy teenage boys think & talk about every waking hour,even though most actually know little about the subject ! On the other hand most Eagle Scouts (& Scout Leaders) look like confused & unpopular virgins with sexual preferences that are no doubt dubious at best ! It's 2012,things evolve & if the other Scouts (their peers) are willing to accept them then the adults who run this organization should cut their losses & repent & relent at last ! You can't say gay Scouts are a threat to national security because we've already heard that one & most Americans no longer care about the sexual preferences of other people ! How can an Eagle Scout get a merit badge nowadays when the organization that they revere has little merit at all ? The Scouts have no shame,but they certainly are a shame & that's a shame !
HeresWhereMyNameGoes October 20, 2012 at 03:50 AM
Sure, John. Yes, John. Whatever you say, John.
HeresWhereMyNameGoes October 20, 2012 at 03:53 AM
Yeah, John. An organization that covers up sexual abuse. Real wholesome. And what leaders. They didn't require mandatory reporting until 2010. How innovative.
HeresWhereMyNameGoes October 20, 2012 at 03:56 AM
Yes, John. Sure, John. Whatever you say, John. The cowardly and troll acting people were the scouting officials and police who did nothing to protect kids. But if it makes you feel better to attack me, go right ahead. I've never witnessed or suspected abuse and not reported it. Too bad a bunch of former national BSA leaders can't say the same.
Eric October 20, 2012 at 04:20 AM
Anon, I had interest in a case that happened to me 35 years ago while Sea Scouting. I read about the guy in the paper about three yers ago which brought up a whole bunch of very bad memories. I went and testified, "Captain Gene" is in jail. If it happened to you then you would have interest in it, you can shut your hole now.
Tom October 20, 2012 at 04:26 AM
Frank cracks me up. One more time, I could care less about anyone's sexuality.
Kathryn Javandel October 20, 2012 at 04:43 AM
@ That's me - Back in the "Good Old Days" it was common for kids to attend scout meetings, even campouts, without their parents. In the Girl Scout program, as a 7 year old Brownie through a teenage Cadette, I went to hundreds of meetings and dozens of campouts without my parents.
Kathryn Javandel October 20, 2012 at 04:46 AM
@lovelafayette - Here is a recent email from our son's local Scoutmaster (in two parts because it is long): Dear Troop 14 Families, Recently there is news from Moraga about a young man being denied his Eagle Rank because he has declared himself to be Homosexual. What I have learned from reading several sources this morning leaves me saddened and disappointed on several levels. Most importantly…I want to reassure all Troop 14 families that as long as I am Scoutmaster…Troop 14 does not and will not discriminate against anyone for their sexual orientation. Period. Years ago, when I was the Pack 3 Cubmaster, we had to deal with the National Policy then too. Some parents demanded we take a public stance. A couple families wanted direct action. Within my first four days as Cubmaster, some quit without ever meeting me or Committee Chair Bob Guletz. They were gone before our first Pack meeting. We were stunned because, we also are firmly against discrimination of any kind. We also strongly felt that quitting was not going to help change the policy. Change must come from within.
Kathryn Javandel October 20, 2012 at 04:46 AM
(part two) At the parent meeting it was decided to ignore the National Policy. We would handle our Pack, and now the Troop, in a manner that reflected our values…the values of the Scout Law. A “Mission Statement” was drafted and then finalized. It has been modified to fit Troop 14. It is short and straight to the point. “Troop 14 reflects the values of the community which it serves. Troop 14 does not discriminate in any manner and welcomes all”. Our track record indicates we back those words up with action. We continue to protest the discriminatory National Policy. If the Pentagon can change, then I am confident that B.S.A. will change eventually too. Sincerely, Don Ford Scoutmaster Albany Troop 14
Albert Rubio October 20, 2012 at 07:01 AM
Much of the disagreements here are a result of an inadequate social theory. What I mean is that the most common ideas (of toleration and egalitarianism etc) are not sufficient to reconcile issues like The Boy Scouts having a policy not to allow gays. Here is the problem, Everyone (and every organization) has a right to free association, but this is different from legalized discrimination. The state should make no law discriminating against its citizens (even though it still does like drug laws for example). Free Association may often be viewed as discriminatory but it means that no one is forced to associate with whom they don't want to. Criticism, protest and persuasion are peaceful means to debate the issue but force is never acceptable. The ends do not justify the means. So while the Boy Scouts apply an illiberal policy, it is their right as a private organization and limited to their association. I understand this principle is not followed in American law consistently but while it is non inclusive on one level, it actually allows society to be more at peace and resolve conflicts that would arise if everyone were forced to accept things they don't agree with. This is one difference between a free society and "egalitarian" society. Please no mendacious remarks, but friendly discussion is welcome.
Night Watch October 20, 2012 at 09:17 AM
That's "Scout's Honor!" sick
Warren October 20, 2012 at 04:51 PM
Thank you editor for your engagement here. The level of personal attacks had been rising to a level I hadn't witnessed before on the Patch. I hope that the Patch can continue to be a place for reasoned expression, discussion, and persuasion. Personal attacks in general are a way to close out discussion and rarely lead to persuasion in my experience.
Chris Nicholson October 20, 2012 at 05:21 PM
Albert, very well stated. My personal view on this is that people on both sides actually are using a similar framework: Freedom to do what you want so long as you don't unreasonably harm others. Everyone agrees that the individual right to swing one's fist ends at the face of an innocent, and that the government should punish those who unreasonably punch. What people disagree with is whether the harm of exclusion outweighs our interest in freedom (with the freedom of association being a component of that). Although each case is different, I would default to freedom, and put a steep burden on those seeking to curtail it. My view is that the government should not protect us from offensive speech, ideas or hurt feelings. Ryan may have some kind of estoppel/reliance type moral claims depending on the nature of his prior assurances, but I don't think the primary harm inflicted by being excluded from a private group should trump general freedom. Those who hold the opposite view (that gov't should force scouts to accept gays) should pause and formulate a general framework that they would be willing to live with in all circumstances. For example, should the burden be on the homeowners to establish a compelling justification for not inviting an acquaintance to their Christmas party? Can they hang a sign on their door that says "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" and not invite known atheists or Jews?
Steven W October 20, 2012 at 05:44 PM
That's me - for our troop (22 in Berkeley), the abuses happened at the Scoutmasters house. Our troop was full of misfits, troubled kids, kids from broken homes, and the Scoutmaster took advantage of that, playing the role of "trusted mentor". The parents trusted him and didn't think twice about allowing their children to hang out at his house. we all knew something was off about him (us kids I mean), but there was never any real proof for the longest time. Nobody was willing to come forward and rat out the only father figure many of them had. It wasn't uncommon for him to provide us with alcohol at his house either - that was where it all started. He would get us drinking, then put on some porn.. I can't speak about what he may have done with the others, but when I was there he would just sit in his chair masturbating and invite me to join him. I didn't, but apparently enough happened with some of the others that he ended up going to prison for quite a while. I do remember sitting in the Kensington Police Station having to go through boxes of photos during the investigation, photos that in retrospect were definitely questionable but at the time seemed perfectly harmless.. us scouts at camp with our shirts off, swimming in the lake, stuff like that. There were always other parents at the campouts but nobody really ever questioned why he would spend time in the tent of one of the boys even though we all (us boys) kinda knew..
Albert Rubio October 20, 2012 at 06:06 PM
Thanks Chris, I agree with the direction of your remarks. It is hard to agree on what "unreasonably harm others." However, I think the limit of liberty is objectively drawn at violence and the threat of violence. I would add that we put names on the ideas so people get an understanding of the philosophies at play (as best we can). I am trying to reason from the Classical Liberal philosophy which I think resolves 90% or more of the worst problems in politics, society and the economy. The major parties are mostly composed of anti-liberal policies, which is why they ought to be abandoned. Socialism and Egalitarianism outside equality before the law, are the poisons on the left that often go unexamined when resisting the social intolerance and military hawkishness on the right. Unfortunately now, each side is adopting the worst aspects of the other.
HeresWhereMyNameGoes October 20, 2012 at 06:09 PM
There are two issues. First issue, the gay thing. I'm not all that concerned with that. It is what it is. The BSA isn't doing anything illegal by excluding them. Second issue, the much more important one, is that yet another organization has been found to put its own needs above the protection of children. Even worse, this is an organization that attempts to play the morality card and claims to be about leadership. If the national BSA truly cared about children why did it fight tooth and nail to prevent the release of these files? Why did it wait until 2010 to have a mandatory reporter policy? If the BSA wants to be seen as a moral organization that promotes leadership then its national staff needs to act that way.
Fritz 'Congodog' Stoop October 20, 2012 at 06:26 PM
to Geoff: Who would be more amused and titillated than a pedophile in a "child protection course"! I take no comfort from such a bandaid-like veneer of precaution. BSA is living in an age where denial regarding the very existence of child molesters was the norm. Now that it is apparent that the world is teeming with these creeps, such half-measures as 'courses' are criminal. If BSA cannot protect the innocent then they are an accomplice to these crimes. I urge every victim to find the courage, and I know the pressure to remain silent is powerful, to report and bring legal action against the BSA. Until they shape their rules to make it as close to impossible for these acts to occur, parents should avoid BSA in favor of alternative organizations that put protection of these innocents as their highest priority.
Chris Nicholson October 20, 2012 at 06:55 PM
@Albert: I'm probably more of a neo(classical)liberal / libertarian, but I am with you. I fuzzed up my framework to avoid some tricky issues like race/gender discrimination by private parties. I am actually OK with letting, for example, private employers choose to not hire (or fire or promote) on whatever basis they choose. I trust the free market will sort it out much better than government paternalism. Similarly, I think evolving social norms will soon resolve most of the desires of the "gay rights" movements (including the BSA policies)-- all without granting them any new "rights" or any government action. In short, they self-organized, started shouting "We're here; we're queer; get used to it."--- and it pretty much worked/is working..... That's how I think much of this stuff should get resolved.....
Fritz 'Congodog' Stoop October 20, 2012 at 07:13 PM
The Criminal Code must be honored and enforced in all situations. A 'private' entity has the right to be exclusive as long as it is self-supporting through its members contributions or other means independent of the government. Once it accepts tax benefits or, for example, free or reduced-rate use of public property, it loses any claim to practice freedom of exclusion. I would not condone the use of a single cent of my tax dollars to support a group that denies Constitutionally guaranteed rights to others. Seems pretty simple to me. You pay your own way, you can do what you want as long as you do not violate the criminal code. C N can close his (presumed) factory to celebrate Hanukkah or Milad un Nabi as long as he pays all his workers (assuming a variety of races and religious affiliation) for the lost time. As an Agnostic, (What I 'do' is more important than in what I believe) I have always been mildly offended by the premium placed on Christianity in a country that simultaneously holds religion(s) separate from state in all matters. My children were taught that generosity is a full time job and that there are a plethora of ways to show affection aside from material gifts. We try to make our gifts fill a perceived need recognized at any point on the calendar year and to always stay within one's means when giving. The apparent contradiction caused by preferential treatment of Christian belief is on a collision course with the true 'melting pot' society.
Fritz 'Congodog' Stoop October 20, 2012 at 10:40 PM
You use a pseudonym containing 'weasel' to hide behind and you call me weird! Coming out can be a freeing experience, Pop.....or so I have read.
Night Watch October 21, 2012 at 08:19 AM
LOL AJ! How true.
dubstep.or.tansformers? October 22, 2012 at 10:33 PM
Livermore 919? Man, I knew a few guys in that troop. That really sucks, my best goes out to those guys. Kinda wish the troop number hadn't been released, too.
Fritz 'Congodog' Stoop October 27, 2012 at 10:13 PM
" Every adult member of the BSA must take a course on Child Safety" Gee, that'll stop'em. Or entertain the hell out of the sick twits. Find them, prosecute to the full extent of the law. They'll be a big hit at Pelican Bay. You all must know that this is just the tip of a very ugly iceberg. It is a well know fact that organizations that put their own will being over the safety of children are usually playgrounds for perverts. It can't happen here... It can't happen here... It can't happen here... It can't happen here... It can't happen here... It can't happen here... Like hell it can't. It is likely happening somewhere to a kid as you read this.
Dan Murray October 30, 2012 at 12:36 PM
It is important to perform a proper background check on adults who will be working with children. However only 4% of Child Sexual Abusers have a criminal record that will show up on a criminal background check, The Diana Screen® identifies an estimated 50% of the men and women who should not be placed into positions of trust with children because they present a sexual risk: either because they have already sexually abused a child or they have a very weak understanding of the strict sexual boundaries required between adults and children. The Diana Screen® does not compete with criminal background checks. Rather, it is intended to complement an organization`s current Abuse Risk Management plan. Thus, it is recommended that organizations that begin use of The Diana Screen® continue use of criminal background checks. www.dianascreen.com
Kit Stycket January 31, 2013 at 05:50 PM
I was involved in reporting other leaders who failed to report the rape of a scout, saying it happened at camp and they weren't responsible. The male leader slapped 4 kids out of rage, including one girl, and the female leader slept w underage girls in the same bed. When kids complained the female said they deserved to be slapped, or were liars. Witness' gave statements, and the 2 leaders were removed, only to be reinstated 6 months later after hiring 2 lawyers, and threatening BSA. A parent and myself reported the situation to BSA and the parent of the slapped girl filed a police report. Those leaders are still in the program. The same parent also reported to BSA that a strip-monopoly game was being played w the youth and adults, and the perpetrators got nothing more than a slap on the wrist. The strip monopoly had been a 40 year tradition. We left the unit and started a new one, as several kids told us they would never participate after the 2 previously removed leaders were reinstated.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something