Children's Therapist Charged With Molestation And Posting Porn On Web

[The Straight Story]

Children's Therapist Charged With Molestation And Posting Porn On Web

POSTED: 11:28 am EST March 10, 2006
UPDATED: 12:05 pm EST March 10, 2006

SAN DIEGO -- A therapist at a children's health center was arrested on charges of molesting at least two patients and posting child pornography on the Internet, authorities said.

Some of the pornography was made in a hospital setting, police Capt. Guy Swanger said.

Wayne Bleyle, 54, was arrested Wednesday after authorities, acting on a tip, found pornography at his home in suburban Santee, Swanger said.

Bleyle, a 25-year employee of Children's Hospital and Health Center, worked at its long-term convalescent facility as a respiratory therapist and had contact with patients requiring constant attention, said hospital spokesman Tom Hanscom. Patients there generally cannot feed, bathe or dress themselves.

"The fact that these are among the most fragile of our fragile patients makes this person's acts particularly horrifying," Hanscom said.

http://www.local6.com/news/7879576/detail.html

This sick freak needs some shock therapy on old sparky :)

[NVMojo]

1. things are nutts all over ...

[meegbear]

2. SICK FUCK

:grr:

[Lindsay]

3. Unfortunately, the "helping" professions also attract a few

who want to...umm...help themselves.

Hope this guy, if guilty, goes away for a long, long time.

[redqueen]

4. Any profession with access to children is a magnet for these types. n/t

[Atman]

5. Okay, I'm donning my flame suit...but there is a compelling sub-text

First of all, I want to say up front, I an not defending this guy or any other child molester in any way. But I want to point something out, in the context of BushCo's Global War On Terra and The State's ability to drag you from your home without so much as a "see ya!" to your family...I urge you all to re-read this story and pick out some details for me. Go on. I'll give you a minute...


*whistling, tapping fingers*


Okay, here goes: this story doesn't actually say what the guy did, or how they know. He was arrested based upon a tip. It DOES NOT SAY he posted pictures of his patients on the internet. It uses vagaries such as "acting on a tip." It says they found pornography at his home -- how about in your home? Do you have any pornography? Note, it DOES NOT SAY they found child porn, or pictures of his patients. The story make it a point to say that "SOME OF" the porn was "in a hospital setting." It DOES NOT SAY that any pictures were taken by him in his hospital or office. Two pictures of half-naked 35-year-old women dressed in patent-leather nurses outfits meets the criteria of "some of the pictures were in a hospital setting." If these were taken at the hospital in which he worked, don't you think that would have been readily apparent? And included in the article?

Here is the point of all this, as I'm sure several of you will jump all over my shit for even thinking that this creep deserves a break...but that's not at all what I'm saying...

THIS STORY SAYS NOTHING.

It uses plenty of innuendo with NO details. The point is, look how easy it is to be totally destroyed with no actual proof that you've done anything. I'm not saying the guy did nothing, but the local news outlet made it a point to put as many damning phrases and cliches into this brief article as possible, without anything to explain or support them. The "hospital setting" porn, for instance...Screen Caps from "Naughty Nurses" or actual photos of his patients in the hospital? It seems that if it was the latter, that would be far more newsworthy, and likely included. Likewise, the "pornography in his home" remark. So the fuck what? Porn isn't illegal, last I heard. Finally, they throw in this gem, probably the worst of all...

"Bleyle...worked at its long-term convalescent facility...and had contact with patients requiring constant attention... Patients there generally cannot feed, bathe or dress themselves."

It isn't evidenced anywhere that the doctor molested patients that "...generally cannot feed, bathe or dress themselves." It says the hospital cares for some, though. Again, the insidious implication being that the doctor molested children who couldn't even dress themselves. Except for that is not indicated anywhere in the article that he had actually done so.

-----

Remember...when the HSA comes and drags you from your home for posting on DU, they'll be able to say the SAME THINGS about 90% of us..."Pornography was found at his home." "He posted on the same internets children use!" "He posted on a site called DU which frequently has crazies posting incomprehensible gibberish supporting the DLC." You see my point? This guy may be guilty as sin.

But maybe, just maybe, he's not. Maybe "the tip" they were acting on came from a pissed off underling who wanted his job, nothing more. There sure seem to be lots of details missing.

That said, if the guy is indeed molesting kids, taking pics of them, posting them...indeed, he deserves the strongest punishment. But keep in mind all the innuendo used in this particular article which made you so hot. It was written, it seems, specifically to notch up the level of anger. Because the only thing in the entire article which is relevant to the charges appears to be that he was arrested on charges of molesting two children. Nothing else in the article even relates to those charges directly.

:hide:

[The Straight Story]

6. A lot More info here:

A 54-year-old respiratory therapist has been arrested on 40 counts of possession, manufacture and distribution of child pornography and two counts of lewd and lascivious acts on two children under 14. In all, the charges involve nine children.


A cell phone allegedly was used to take photographs of bedridden children at the 59-bed convalescent center, which is part of the Children's Hospital complex in Kearny Mesa. Some of those images were distributed on the Internet.

“There may be more than 500 pictures we know about so far,” he said.

The same day the search warrant was served, police notified Children's Hospital that some patients at the convalescent facility were victims.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060310-9999-1n10child.html

[Atman]

8. Okay...thank you very much!

That is a MUCH better, more informative article. The first writer should be fired for such a shallow piece of reporting!

The guys appears to be guilty as sin, and therefore deserves everything coming to him.

All that aside...do you see my point about how a poorly written, possibly bullshit story could be used to ruin any one of us? Since you no longer have a guaranteed right to an attorney in this country, all "they" need to do is plant a few innuendos like this, haul you off to Gitmo, and your former friends and your neighbors will be so disgusted by what they've read, no one would even care enough to come looking for you!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. yes i do see your point...that article was vague

[Lars39]

7. First few words of the article: He was charged with molesting 2 patients.

[Atman]

9. You can be CHARGED with anything.

That is not the same as "he did it."

[Lars39]

12. The children in the pics were his patients.

[Atman]

14. You really need to read what I wrote

I realize that, as it was explaine IN THE SECOND ARTICLE, but NOT the article originally posted. Keep the two seperate. I understand they were his patients. So why didn't the first article say so? That's all beside my original point, which was how easy it is to write a poorly researched slam piece that could be use to have anyone you don't like locked away forever.

This is the era of the Patriot Act, after all.

[Lars39]

18. The very first 2 sentences did say so:

A therapist at a children's health center was arrested on charges of molesting at least two patients and posting child pornography on the Internet, authorities said.

Some of the pornography was made in a hospital setting, police Capt. Guy Swanger said.

Keeping the article vague could also be a way to protect the victims.

[Atman]

19. Nonsense

You directly referenced points I already made...SOME OF THE PORNOGRAPHY FOUND IN HIS HOME was made in a hospital setting. It NEVER says it was made in THE hospital setting in which he worked. Again, a copy of "Naughy Nurses" found in your home would fit this definition. And you seemed to ignore the other part, too...he was CHARGED with molesting two patients. Based upon a tip. As we now know, there is ample evidence to support this, but -- and this is important -- my post was written in response to the first article, which gave absolutely no details, and was written very poorly. Keeping the article vaque to protect the victims is nonsense. Read the second article. It fills in the blanks, with no loss of privacy to the victims.

[Lars39]

20. Finding pics of 2 of his patients in a hospital setting isn't enough

detail for you?

[Atman]

21. Lars, there is nothing to discuss here

You're simply not reading what I am writing.

Re-read the first article carefully; dissect it with a critical eye. Contrary to what you're asserting, it never says they found pictures of two of his patients taken in a hospital setting. It simply doesn't say that, despite your reading it that way. IT JUST DOESN'T SAY THAT.

It DOES NOT SAY he posted pictures of the two children on the internet. It says one of the charges was that he "posted child pornography on the internet." It then says "some of the pictures were made in a hospital setting." Again, IT DOES NOT SAY that there were pictures of those two kids, nor does it say that there are pictures of those kids taken at the hospital in which he worked. It merely states that he posted pictures of children in a hospital setting.

Again -- Lars, listen carefully -- the second article by the OP had many, many more details. You seem to think I am saying the guy didn't do anything. My critique is of the terribly written article which relies far more on vagueness and innuendo than it does on facts, facts which the second article filled in. While I am discussing a terribly written article, you're accusing me of defending a child molester. Let's get on the same page here, 'kay?

[Lars39]

22. "posting child pornography...Some of the pornography..."

Works for me.

[Atman]

23. Fine, don't let the facts get in your way

Words and the way they're arranged actually mean something in my world.

[Lars39]

24. The facts seems to suggest that you just want to whale on somebody.

I don't think it's going to be me. :hi:

[Atman]

11. I guess this is a prime example of liberal nuancing!

It would have been so much easier just to say HANG HIM! without thinking about what I was reading. I guess that is why the GOP does so well with its constituents. Why waste time with complicated analysis when the gallows is waiting?

But now that I've read BOTH articles...

HANG HIM!

[Swamp Rat]

13. "liberal nuancing?"

:shrug:

[Atman]

15. In reference to post #5

I used to edit a magazine, so I read differently than many/most. I was looking for details, and instead found only weasel words and vagaries which would have caused me to send this back to the copy editor immediately had the article run across my desk. It was horribly written and researched.

The second article, otoh, by OP, filled in all the blanks. So we're now discussing a settled issue, as far as I'm concerned. It appears the guy is guilty as sin.

[Fleshdancer]

10. WHY?

This takes child abuse to a whole new, horrifying, disgusting level.

[FreedomAngel82]

16. It is horrifying

I'm glad they caught the sick bastard. Ugh.