Saturday, June 15, 2013

Teacher Accused of Molestation

Regular readers of Statement Analysis often need no guidance in coming to a conclusion on whether or not the subject "did it"; unless there is a dearth of statements for analysis.  Readers are used to knowing whether or not someone did it...not much mystery.

Here, we have little to go on, and as we seek fairness, we should conclude that there were many more statements made here than what the reporter listed.  We do not know if he had the chance to say "I did not do it"; therefore, we are unable to make a conclusion.  It is our hope that more journalists will take SCAN training.

Teacher on stand: I’m no molester

A Queens teacher accused of molesting several students took the stand yesterday to defend his record and vehemently deny any wrongdoing.
Simon Watts (left, at court yesterday) is accused of touching five students between 2007 and 2010 when he taught third- and fourth-graders at Jackie Robinson Elementary in Springfield Gardens.
I’d like to think I was a good teacher,” Watts said while being questioned by his attorney, Amy Marion, during his trial in Queens Supreme Court.
I was very organized. I was a strict disciplinarian.
Watts, 42 — who is charged with multiple counts of sexual misconduct against children — denied forcible-touching allegations from his accusers, who were all between the ages of 8 and 9.
Simon Watts
Ellis Kaplan
Simon Watts
The married father said he occasionally had private conversations with students after class, but never touched them inappropriately.
“We hope that the jury does what they are supposed to do, which is to look at all the evidence in this case and to realize that there is no evidence that Mr. Watts did anything wrong near what these children say,” said his attorney.


Gambler said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gambler said...

Let's give this another try, I messed up the first time, that's why I deleted it.
The teacher's comments sure don't sound very convincing, that's for sure.

Vita said...

He is in the press going back to 2010. His mother interviewed upon the allegations, his arrest. Pressers to offer escalation of numbers, of youngsters coming forth that he did "Molest them". Numbers to go up to " 14", in the year of 2010. (god)

His mother quoted April 2010:
To prosecutors, he's a perverted predator who molested schoolgirls in his classroom.

To his mother, Queens teacher Simon Watts is "Mr. Perfect."

"He is known in the family as 'Mr. Perfect' because he's very strict," Barbara Watts, 73, told the Daily News from her Brooklyn home.

"He thinks you have to dress professional, everything has to always be clean, and he believes everyone should work hard to be perfect."

Barbara Watts rushed to her son's defense three days after he was arrested on sex abuse charges.

A total of 14 schoolgirls have come forward to say Watts molested them.

Barbara Watts said she has no doubt her 38-year-old son, a fourth-grade teacher at PS 15 in Springfield Gardens, is innocent.

She described her middle son as a saintly high achiever. He never drank or smoked, and held straight A's throughout school, Barbara Watts said.

"He's a churchgoing man. He's very well-liked in the community," Watts added

"If I was not sure of [his innocence], I would not say anything. I'm positively, absolutely sure everything will be in order."

Watts said that when she heard about her son's arrest on the news, her reaction was disbelief.

"When it came on the news, I said, 'There must be a mistake,'" she said. "I was shocked and surprised. I thought they had the wrong name."

Read more:
Mr. Perfect didn't tell his mother of the allegations, she heard/saw him accused arrested on the news. Mr. Perfect made the headlines, she to be proud of him, this her reasoning of the interview?

His innocence the question asked not stated, her response, *If I was not sure of (sic) I would not say anything. I'm positively, absolutely sure everything will be in order*

" I would not say anything" -
is this her message to her son, Mr. Perfect? 14 girls to come forward, they must of got him confused with their teacher.


Vita said...

Dang, he goes back even further, to 2005! * can we say he is educated all right, on how to not get caught* Mr. Perfect is a groomer with history proving his efforts have protected him for over a decade?

Nine more Queens schoolgirls have accused a fourth-grade teacher of molesting them, just days after he was arrested for abusing five other students, officials said Friday.

The girls spoke up after Simon Watts, a teacher at Public School 15 in Springfield Gardens, was collared on Wednesday.

"[My daughter]'s been crying. She's really upset," said the dad of one of the nine girls. "I'm upset. I'm angry. How did this go under the radar for so long?"

His 10-year-old daughter, whose name is being withheld by the Daily News, said Watts asked her to come in early and paid special attention to her.

"I thought it was good. A teacher was taking an interest in my daughter," said the dad, whose daughter told him about the alleged abuse in a handwritten letter Thursday.

The letter from the girl reads, "Mr. S. Watts has touched me inappropriately when I was in the 4th grade. He has rubbed my arms, gave me mashages [sic], touched my face and told me I was beautiful."

The family was struggling to understand what happened, both parents said yesterday. "How do we go on? We don't know how to function," said the girl's mother.

City Education Department spokesman David Cantor said the agency moved swiftly to remove Watts from school once the NYPD alerted the agency of the possible abuse.

Watts faces felony charges in the serial abuse of five girls beginning in 2007, when he arrived at the Springfield Gardens school.

While working as a teacher at Brooklyn's PS 115, Watts was investigated by the city Education Department for two allegations of corporal punishment in 2005. Only one was substantiated.

The special school investigator's office also investigated Watts for a separate, unsubstantiated allegation during his time at PS 115 in 2005.

Read more:
He was known, yet allowed to continue in the classroom for years. Who's on first? Unbelievable, but believable, Kids you know they say the darnedest things...

Out of the mouth of babes: were utterances without substantiation?, no need for investigations?

So sorry we cannot afford this, sorry little Minor 4th grader..for coming forth...go back to class now. We have Selective Hearing, not selective hearings,..the response of the powers that be.

They chose to Opt out, Kids do not have this choice, it's not about the kids, it's our reputation we hold dear.

Shameful Disgrace

Anonymous said...

"He's a churchgoing man. He's very well-liked in the community," were serial killers. Just because someone is well liked and goes to church, doesn't make them perfect. Wolf in sheep's clothing.

Unknown said...

LOL @ anyone thinking a "church goer" can't be a scum of the earth.

Okay, this guy is a total creep and I wouldn't argue any different...but

(yes, Peter, there's that dang "but")

My question is this: While it does sound strange, and in this case quite incriminating, to say "i'd like to THINK i was a good {insert your job, hobby, sport, whatever here}" MANY MANY people say that, innocent people,

I've heard some awesome people say they'd like to THINK they were good at whatever, but seriously, they had to have been being humble, either that or had low self-esteem.

Anonymous said...

I am always concerned when anyone is labeled "perfect". They are putting in a lot of effort to look a certain way. But as humans, we are not perfect.

I work in HR. there is confidence in abilities. And there is over the top "I am the best". Every single time the over the top person is the one with the issues.

So I have learned to avoid hiring those types.

I also feel like 1 victim... Maybe it's a mistake. But 14? Unless there is some big conspiracy (which would need a valid reason), that is highly unlikely!

My last point, any one today that feels throwing religion I'm the mix in anyway gives anyone that actually pays attention and view of innocence is adding (at least to my views) to their guilt. Just look at the number of priests (and this is just those we know about - the numbers we don't could be unreal) that have been accused of molesting kids. So religion has no place in a criminals defense. It simply means nothing.

So I take his mothers statements as vet concerning. A perfect church going man? That screams trouble.

Another way I know this.. My own mother tried to get help. Her grandfather was molesting her. She went to a catholic school. Told the nuns. Instead of getting help, she was scolded. "Your grandfather is a church going man" is all the said to her.

So... My opinion at this point is we have a serial child molestor.

Mom knows, but she may very well have her own demons.


Red Ryder said...

His lawyer does not issue a reliable denial. He says, "there is no evidence to show that Mr.Watts did anything wrong near what these children say." Oh, okay, what?
So...if he Mr.Watts did't do the wrong near what the kids say, what was the wrong he did do? (the world according to "his attorney")
This sounds a lot like the "prove it" attitude seen in some of the suspects of lesser mental strength in some of the missing toddler cases the past couple of years!
Just a few thoughts.

Red Ryder said...

My apologies, "she said", Mr. Watt's lawyer is female.

Cordelia Norway said...

Anders Behring Breivik (Norwegian massmurderer) was labeled Mr. Perfect from his friends and co workers.

He always looked his very best, was extremely polite, clean, neatly dressed and well behaved (as an adult, that is).

Still, he is evil.

Light The Way said...

"...there is NO EVIDENCE that Mr.Watts did ANYTHING NEAR WHAT these children say," said his attorney.

The attorney knows his client is guilty. Period.

He refutes that there is "evidence" to PROVE that his client did anything wrong "NEAR what" these children say he did.

Implying that there IS evidence that he did "something wrong", just not enough to PROVE the most serious of the claims against his client, in a court room.

How does this attorney sleep at night, calling these 8 and 9 year old victims liars on the witness stand, all the while KNOWING that his client is guilty, and a monster???


Nanna Frances said...

...there is no evidence that Mr. Watts did anything wrong near what these children say,” said his attorney.

His attorney admits he did something wrong just not what the children said. Am I reading that statement correctly?

Tania Cadogan said...

“We hope that the jury does what they are supposed to do, which is to look at all the evidence in this case and to realize that there is no evidence that Mr. Watts did anything wrong near what these children say,” said his attorney.

There is evidence.

There is evidence the teacher did wrong.

There is evidence he did wrong to the children then the case is closed, guilty as charged.

The children say he did things to them, the attorney says he didn't do anything near what the children said, therefore he did things to the children that were not near what they said.

It then beomes a matter of degrees or points of view.
What did the teacher do that he doesn't reagard as near what they said?
It is a given he did something so what did he do?

It seems apparant he has a thing about discipline which makes me wonder just how far did he go?

I wonder what his internal dictionary is?
Where is the line drawn as to what he sees as innocent touching or discipline and what he sees as inappropriate.

I want to hear from the subjects own mouth.

sidewalk super said...

what on earth did he do wrong that wasn't near what his accusers said? Must have been a heck of a lot worse!

And Mama, he had you bamboozled even as a youngster, didn't he?

Wonder what wifey thinks about Mr. Perfect now?

GetThem said...

"...but never touched them inappropriately."

Can someone ask questions on what type of touching IS inappropriate with children?

Coughing said...

Exactly what the lawyer said, 'near.' The best denial is 'he never touched the children,' without a qualifier. These qualifiers say a lot even in the absence of a statement. I hate it when journalists say someone denies something. Where the hell is the denial? That would be the ideal quote. Where is the journalistic integrity and competency here? He did not deny it---he did not even refer to it---the molestation, in fact, just going by his words and nothing else, this article isn't even about molestation--the teacher circumvented it entirely and the journalist knitted it together inaccurately? incompetently?

~ABC said...

When an innocent person is falsely accused instinct drives a clear and unguarded denial from them. It's that simple. They feel no need to hide behind lawyers or give dramatic reasons why they cannot speak for themselves.

He did it and we know it.

Anonymous said...

Damn it Vita, why can't you write in a comprehensible manner? What are you trying to's impossible to know when what you type makes absolutely no sense every time you comment. Stop being an idiot and write the way you are supposed to because it's irritating

Anonymous said...

If you read the article that Vita posted, Vita's comments make more sense. The main problem is that he was investigated previously for Thing A, not Thing B. It just doesn't work legally or logically to assume a leap to Thing B although we do make that leap emotionally in hindsight. Thing A in 2005 apparently had merit but wasn't severe enough to keep him out of the classroom. NOW he is being accused of felonious Thing B activities back to 2007. Any convictions of Thing B will keep him out of the classroom. It is unfortunate that in order to remove such a person, there must be victims. But those girls should be commended for coming forward. It takes a lot of courage.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 845pm June 18 - how obnoxious you are. I believe that English is Vita's second language. Even if not, why be so nasty? If you don't like her comments, don't read them. She often has good insight on these stories.

Anonymous said...

I meant 845am, whoops. Tired tonight.