Background Checks for Volunteers?

**Athena** · February 27th, 2009, 02:05 PM

Whether it is in the "Why are you here?" threads in the forums or the comments on the front page, our members and staff are quick to offer up their motivations for searching out news of this nature. Often, we hear that an individual was following a specific story that lead them here, like Rowan Ford or Caylee Anthony. Other times, people find themselves here because tragedy once touched them personally, and it set off a passion for true crime in general. Others yet are simply fascinated by the psychology behind crime. And, while the vast majority of true crime fans fall into one of these three benign catagories, there is another, darker catagory of true crime fan that doesn't often get discussed.

Yesterday, the true crime blog community was taken aback by the news that a staff member of a popular true crime site, WebSleuths.com, is a convicted pedophile. In 1992, Terry Cavitalo, a.k.a. WindChime, plead no contest to multiple counts of Lewd and Lascivious Act in the Presense of a Minor Under the Age of 16, stemming from an incident involving her and her ex-husband, James Cavitalo, engaged in sexual acts in front of children. As a result of this crime, she was sentenced to three years in prison.

As we understand it, the staff at WebSleuths, a site that advocates for children especially, was entirely unaware of this conviction. WindChime has since been removed from the site, but had represented WebSleuths in at least one search for a missing child prior to her removal.

Now, WindChime's motivations for affiliating herself with such a site is a matter of pure speculation. She could very well have been trying to make restitution for her crime by positively involving herself in activities like searching for missing children. There's one thing we know for certain, however - Due to the nature of true crime, especially when the focus in on children, we are prone to draw some sick individuals, individuals who are fascinated and excited by suffering.

Blogs like ours, WebSleuths and others rely very heavily on volunteers to perform the functions necessary to keep these sites operational. Now, here at Dreamin'Demon, staff members have little if any access to the victims associated with the crimes we feature, and we do not organize any external volunteer work. The question remains, however - Should we be checking the backgrounds of our staff members?

**Sister Iroz** · February 27th, 2009, 02:11 PM

I like your opinions Athena, what is your? Can't you pretty much find out most things even if you have to pay for it.

**moonlilly1981** · February 27th, 2009, 02:18 PM

Thats a hard one for me to make a choice on. Let me think about it for a bit cause im at work and the beeping of the backhoe is bugging my brain today.

**petrina** · February 27th, 2009, 02:20 PM

i'm holding out for a strip search before i volunteer to do anything around this joint

**swivel** · February 27th, 2009, 02:30 PM

No. And I frankly don't see what the big deal is over at WebSleuths. This seems like a past crime that has been served. We can't know if the person is still capable of these actions, or if her job at WS was to make up for things she feels truly sorry for.

The bigger lesson here is not to take the strident wailing from our community so seriously. Who knows how many of us are like the priest who condemns the homosexual to hell and then rushes into a motel to have a male hooker flip up his smock and pound his anus with a gay cock? For all I know these entire communities are like ex-smokers who gag when they smell Nicorette on someone's breath. Whining hypocrites who are wary of other people just like them.

Besides, I wouldn't go to a male gynecologist. There is a level of expertise we get from DD's front page that can be directly traced to the degenerate lifestyles of our resident psychos and miscreants.

If anything, I feel like Morbid's writing has been steadily dropping in quality ever since he stopped buggering 6-year-olds...

**Athena** · February 27th, 2009, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Special2bme

I like your opinions Athena, what is your? Can't you pretty much find out most things even if you have to pay for it.

My opinion? Absolutely not. There's no legal liability to warrant it. WebSleuths has become the unfortunate victim of circumstance through absolutely no fault of their own.

Originally Posted by swivel

Besides, I wouldn't go to a male gynecologist. There is a level of expertise we get from DD's front page that can be directly traced to the degenerate lifestyles of our resident psychos and miscreants.

Really? Because, in my experience, I've found male gynecologists to be much more careful, which is a greatly appreciated quality given the nature of their work. Even better is a foreign Asian male gynecologist. Those people have made an art of painfully blunt communication.

But I get your point. It's why I've never even entertained the idea of writing up crime articles for the front page. I've neither the "skills of a misspent youth" nor prominent victimhood to draw from. I just don't contain the emotion to make me useful in that capacity. I don't even have any creative derogatory terms for bad people. Total waste.

**Jodibug** · February 27th, 2009, 02:59 PM

I do not think that it is necessary for any forum or blog to do background checks on it's participants. (admin, mods or members)

Just don't try to sweep it under the rug when something comes to light. Give it the same exposure that you would give any other case. Is that too much to ask?????

**Athena** · February 27th, 2009, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Jodibug

Just don't try to sweep it under the rug when something comes to light. Give it the same exposure that you would give any other case. Is that too much to ask?????

Not at all, Jodibug... Not at all. In fact, it seems only fair.

Welcome to D'D.

**Morbid** · February 27th, 2009, 03:08 PM

As I stated before, I don't think that a website should be expected to run background checks on their VOLUNTEER staff. But I would be a bit wary if any of my staff were to go out into the public eye representing the site. That's just to protect all the hard work that we have done to get this site whipped into the gloriously, trashy shape it is in.

I would hate for it all get torn down because one of my staff members, who was on television FOR the site no less, turned out to be convicted of ass-raping babies. This event brings up some great discussion topics, especially for a site like ours...especially showing what can happen when someone finds THEMSELVES under the same microscope they used on others.

**philly_phan** · February 27th, 2009, 03:11 PM

MY OB/GYN is male...have always had a male. I am comfortable w/ male or female OB/GYN seeing my va-jay-jay as long as they are educated and know what the hell they are doing! It's their damn job, they see it all day long. I don't think my Brazilian is that special that they are taking notes and secret pics.

As far as background checking volunteers on a forum/blog, that is craziness. This is a mostly anonymous type thing here, right? I have no clue who Morbid is or what he looks like, that's the beauty and the beast of the internet. It's so anonymous, people can hide behind screen names and false pretenses...I think we just have to be careful who we associate w/ and what we associate ourselves w/. Some of us have pics of ourselves up on here, pics of kids and some share their personal details. Most people are anonymous b/c of their jobs or b/c they don't want their business all out on the internet. I, personally, do not have ANY associations w/ ANY website under my real name except my professional/personal gmail account. I do not want anyone googling me and coming up w/ links to this site, I have no pics of my bare ass ANYWHERE on the internet, I do not want potential employers seeing my personal stoned myspace page

I never knew Athena was so young til yesterday when I read her thread on the Mary Kay situation! I mean, I don't think she wants to know what I assumed or thought she looked like...picture: hot, stern librarian.

For all we know, there could be child porn addicts on here. I would like to think that is not the case, but the truth is we really don't know one another like that.

**Pixie** · February 27th, 2009, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Morbid

especially showing what can happen when someone finds THEMSELVES under the same microscope they used on others.

I read this part in a Rod Sterling voice.

**philly_phan** · February 27th, 2009, 03:14 PM

But volunteering in a hands-on sense, in the community - if the volunteers are going to be around children, I think it's important the organizations know of past convictions or allegations. I volunteer in my community and have met some great (and suspect) people. I know nothing about them except that they showed up to do the same thing I'm doing. I try not to be judgemental and criticial of anyone's intentions or motives...I guess I trust people til they give me a reason not to. But back to topic, background checking volunteer bloggers is ridiculous and would be so time consuming, and would require the check-ee to provide personal info. to someone they don't know...this is an iffy thing for me.

**Athena** · February 27th, 2009, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by philly_phan

But volunteering in a hands-on sense, in the community - if the volunteers are going to be around children, I think it's important the organizations know of past convictions or allegations.

Indeed. That's why I mentioned the fact that our volunteers don't have access to victims nor does this site organize any external volunteer work. If that were the case - if, by being staff at this site, I was privy to personal information of the members (many of whom have children), or Morbid was sending me out to represent D'D at events, it would be prudent to know a thing or two about me. But because none of that is the case, there's really no need.

As Morbid mentioned, that's what's difficult about this situation for WebSleuths. The fact that this woman represented the site externally is what makes it embarrassing for them, in my opinion. This woman wasn't some anonymous contributor... she was, at times, the face of WebSleuths. That's a slightly different ballgame.

And, Philly... there are pictures of me on this very site. Awful Halloween pictures where I've got a bunch of crap on my face that makes it difficult to see what I look like, but generally-speaking, I look like a hoodlum. My ears are pierced four times on each side, I wear heavy, dramatic makeup (and some glitter, today) and am most commonly seen in skate shoes and hoodies or trackjackets.

That said, if I had to guess my look based on my posts, the library one is a good bet. I'm sure I strike people as very uptight.

**Morbid** · February 27th, 2009, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Athena

I look like a hoodlum

Anyone on my Facebook can attest, I look like I should be ON the front page, not writing for it.

**Stella** · February 27th, 2009, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by philly_phan

But volunteering in a hands-on sense, in the community - if the volunteers are going to be around children, I think it's important the organizations know of past convictions or allegations. I volunteer in my community and have met some great (and suspect) people. I know nothing about them except that they showed up to do the same thing I'm doing. I try not to be judgemental and criticial of anyone's intentions or motives...I guess I trust people til they give me a reason not to. But back to topic, background checking volunteer bloggers is ridiculous and would be so time consuming, and would require the check-ee to provide personal info. to someone they don't know...this is an iffy thing for me.

Right now, adults being around children happens to be an extra-sensitive topic with me (read Dear so and so since I don't want to re-live it at the moment; involves my own granddaughter), so I know what you mean.

But I believe what Morbid is referring to is not our bloggers but someone in person representing DD as an "on-site" rep, or something like that. At least that's the way I read it.

{S}

**Athena** · February 27th, 2009, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Morbid

Anyone on my Facebook can attest, I look like I should be ON the front page, not writing for it.

Actually, you look like my uncle Mike in the one picture where you're all scruffy. Unsettling.

**Morbid** · February 27th, 2009, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Stella

But I believe what Morbid is referring to is not our bloggers but someone in person representing DD as an "on-site" rep, or something like that. At least that's the way I read it.

You read it correctly.

**philly_phan** · February 27th, 2009, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Morbid

Anyone on my Facebook can attest, I look like I should be ON the front page, not writing for it.

I don't have Facebook! The one networking site I do not belong to, ugh. Someone send me a pic, lol. This is interesting...

**brokenandtwisted** · February 27th, 2009, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by Athena

...we are prone to draw some sick individuals, individuals who are fascinated and excited by suffering.

You rang?

But no, I believe a criminal check is somewhat nonsensical. There's zero interaction with anyone in reality, thereby legal liability is irrelevant. The only reasonable thing to warrant one would be liability - disadvantage - on the site's behalf? Defamation of character (which isn't relative...'defame' is a diminutive of 'diffamare', which means to 'spread about as an insulting report') wouldn't really make sense.

If anything given the scenario Morbid posted, bad publicity is better than no publicity.

**philly_phan** · February 27th, 2009, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Athena

And, Philly... there are pictures of me on this very site. Awful Halloween pictures where I've got a bunch of crap on my face that makes it difficult to see what I look like, but generally-speaking, I look like a hoodlum. My ears are pierced four times on each side, I wear heavy, dramatic makeup (and some glitter, today) and am most commonly seen in skate shoes and hoodies or trackjackets.

That said, if I had to guess my look based on my posts, the library one is a good bet. I'm sure I strike people as very uptight.

Not uptight, per se...just studious, maybe? I picture you w/ long blonde hair pulled up in messy bun and glasses, face buried in a book or hands on keyboard researching something! I don't know what ANYONE on DD looks like except SoJaded and Silvahalo (and maybe a little MORE of SJ and SILV than I'd like to see, lol

). I haven't seen any pics of you. Where can I go? To your profile? I guess the anonymity of it keeps it interesting for me...although I do have pics on my profile.

**Morbid** · February 27th, 2009, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by brokenandtwisted

If anything given the scenario Morbid posted, bad publicity is better than no publicity.

That may work for showbiz, but like pedo priests and the church...having a true crime site with a pedo staff member isn't good no matter how you slice it.

I am thinking of using this post as our first "editoral" type post to go up on the front page. We have been meaning to start putting up crime based articles articles on the front page on occasion, maybe we will start with this.

**philly_phan** · February 27th, 2009, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Stella

But I believe what Morbid is referring to is not our bloggers but someone in person representing DD as an "on-site" rep, or something like that. At least that's the way I read it.

{S}

That's what I got from it too...agreed

**Peeperann** · February 27th, 2009, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Jodibug

I do not think that it is necessary for any forum or blog to do background checks on it's participants. (admin, mods or members)

Just don't try to sweep it under the rug when something comes to light. Give it the same exposure that you would give any other case. Is that too much to ask?????

Ditto. No need but I feel it needs to discussed if it happens. Tricia is trying too hard to ignore to ignore what happened in her own front yard.

**Athena** · February 27th, 2009, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by Morbid

I am thinking of using this post as our first "editoral" type post to go up on the front page. We have been meaning to start putting up crime based articles articles on the front page on occasion, maybe we will start with this.

Editorials... Of course. Here I was struggling to determine exactly what you were looking for, and with one, simple word, it clicks.

I can pump editorials out like it's going out of style. In fact, this post isn't very editorial at all, as editorials tend to argue either for or against, and the OP is more informational than opinionated.

Now that I know, however, we're good to go. I'll use this forum to post editorials and you are free to pick and choose from them, if you so choose. I'll start next week (assuming I can find something current and crime-related to have an opinion about, which I'm sure won't be a problem).

"Editorials"... Sheesh. I feel like a dumbass, now.

**Rockin Ma** · February 27th, 2009, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by Morbid

Anyone on my Facebook can attest, I look like I should be ON the front page, not writing for it.

I wouldn't know. There was a whole thread about FB and then you didn't accept my request. I even said "Rockin Ma from DD". The Fabulous Imp Queen accepted right away.

**Dakota Valkyrie** · February 27th, 2009, 07:17 PM

For all we know, Morbid could be a pedo. While I doubt it, I've never done a background check on him. It really doesn't matter, though. If I found out he was more of a perv than he presents himself as, I wouldn't let it color my thinking on anyone else here or the mission/content of the site.

I don't think they have a thing like CarFax for couches anyway. Without that, any check on Morbid is useless.

**Morbid** · February 27th, 2009, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Rockin Ma

I wouldn't know. There was a whole thread about FB and then you didn't accept my request. I even said "Rockin Ma from DD". The Fabulous Imp Queen accepted right away.

I probably missed it. I accept everyone.

**Unamused Cat** · February 27th, 2009, 07:50 PM

I've no problem having a background check done as long as none of my personal info gets online for the tards to find. Meow Baby!

**moonlilly1981** · February 27th, 2009, 10:03 PM

The only times I think it would or should be required from a vol of a true crime blogging site is under the following situations.

1. if said vol has access to members personal info. ie real name, address, phone number, and credit card number. ( bold membership )
2. or like Morbid said if a staff vol goes out into the community to represent the site that has been created.

I only say that because well I hope some pervy pedo or crook dosnt have that info to rape my babies or steal mine and my husbands hard earned money. And if a pedo is out searching for a missing child and it does come out that said person is a nasty child touching pervert it can ruin the rep of the site that was built by hours of hard work by the site owner ie morbid's dreamindemon and crimecritics sites.