The following cases represent a sampling of Sexually Violent Predators who were “paper screened” and released to commit a new sexual offense.

Gilton Pitri

Gilton Pitrie, a convicted rapist was known for having chained and sexually assaulted his victim.

What the DMH “paper screener” ignored in concluding that Pitrie was non-dangerous:

• Pitrie chained and sexually assaulted his original rape victim;
• Chaining/domination are aspects of sexual sadism;
• He had numerous other criminal offenses that included violence and drugs;
• He had prior failures on parole;
• His criminal history and poor pro-social functioning suggest criminally inclined psychopathy;
• Sexual sadism + psychopath = high risk for sexual homicide.

Despite these risk factors, Pitrie was “paper screened” by the California DMH as cleared for release in 2007.

Who pays the price for paper-screening this predator for release? Four days after he was paroled, Pitrie raped and murdered 15-year-old Alyssa Gomez whose body was found in a dumpster wrapped in a blanket. That blanket was traced to the hotel where Pitrie was staying. Surveillance cameras documented Petrie coming into the hotel with the adolescent, and leaving later with a large blanketed bundle.  Later, Petrie’s DNA would be found in Alyssa Gomez’s vagina.

As further evidence of the lack of concern for public safety by the state DMH bureaucrats, the individual who “paper screened” Petrie as “safe for release” is now one of three chief advisors to the DMH bureaucrats and trains state employees to do “paper screenings.”

Mr. A

Mr. A was arrested in 1983 and had 5-counts of lewd & lascivious acts with 4-year-old female over a 9-month time period[1]. He was convicted of one sexual violation. He came in and out of the system on other parole violations.  In 1995 his parole was violated for digital penetration of a 2 year-old.

What the DMH “paper screener” ignored in concluding that Mr. A was non-dangerous:

• In 1983, Mr. A sexually assaulted a 4-year -old female over a nine month timeframe. She was an extremely vulnerable victim with low verbal skills. Protracted offending = pedophilia – risk factor for re-offending;
• In 1983, Mr. A had 5 counts of lewd and lascivious acts filed against him: demonstrates persistence of sexual offending against a very small child associated with offenses where there was enough information for the District Attorney to at least file charges;
• Poor cooperation with authority while on parole (keeps coming back to custody due to parole violation). This is a risk factor for re-offending;
• He violates parole during the commission of his second sexual offense in 1995. He is convicted for putting his fingers into the vagina of a 2-year-old: He shows a continued pattern of sexual perversity focused on even younger victim: arousal to toddler;
• He persists in committing sexual offending despite having been criminally sanctioned (prison);
• Sexually offends even while he’s being watched by parole. Parole monitoring is not safe release for this man.

Despite these risk factors, Mr. A was “paper screened” by the California DMH as cleared for release in late 2007.

Who pays the price for paper-screening this predator for release? In late 2009 Mr. A attempted to rape of a 17 year old, and was returned to custody for a parole violation.

Mr. B

In 1997, Mr. B forced a 12 year-old-girl to have sex with him at least 5 times, including oral sex and sodomy.  He had a history of being in and out of prison for many types of crimes including drugs, domestic violence and multiple parole violations.

What the DMH “paper screener” ignored in concluding that Mr. B was non-dangerous:

• In 1997 he forced a 12-year-old girl to have sex with  him at least 5 times
• The sexual acts are substantial and include oral sex and sodomy;
• Mr. B has a history of being in and out of prison for many types of crimes including drugs, domestic violence;
• Fails while under community supervision: Mr. B has multiple parole violations.
• Have to ignore forced sexual acts against a young girl = pedophilia coupled with criminally oriented man (antisocial) = diagnostically this is a dangerous combo: person who is sexually deviant and is going to do what he wants to do, doesn’t care about the law or the rights of others, and doesn’t feel that he has to obey authority.

Despite these risk factors, Mr. B was “paper screened” by the California DMH as cleared for release in late 2008. He was released from prison in mid 2009.

Who pays the price for paper-screening this predator for release? Only one month later he raped, sodomized and orally copulated a 14-year-old female over a period of 2 to 3 weeks. Apparently this started just after his last release.

Mr. C

Mr. C sexually assaulted a 9-year-old girl multiple times and was serving a prison term for this offense.

What the DMH “paper screener” ignored in concluding that Mr. C was non-dangerous:

• Sexual deviance: the presence of multiple sexual assaults upon a 9-year-old girl: clear risk marker for re-offending.

Despite these risk factors, Mr. C was “paper screened” by the California DMH as cleared for release.

Who pays the price for paper-screening this predator for release? At the beginning of 2008, Mr. C established a relationship with a woman who had a 7-year-old-daughter.  He then sexually molested this child over several months until his arrest in late 2008 on a parole violation.

Mr. D

Mr. D was serving time for a 2003 conviction for sexually assaulting an 11-year old girl not known to him and whom he stalked.

What the DMH “paper screener” ignored in concluding that Mr. C was non-dangerous:

• Sexual deviance – pedophilia;
• Stalking a victim – shows;
• Victim is a stranger.

Despite these risk factors, Mr. D was “paper screened” by the California DMH as cleared for release in late 2007.

Who pays the price for paper-screening this predator for release? Mr. D was arrested for the rape of a female nine months after his release.

Mr. E

In 2006 Mr. E was convicted for sexual contact with a 14 or 15 year-old[2]. He told his underage nephew and his nephew’s underage girlfriend (either 14 or 15 years of age) that they could go in his bedroom if they wanted privacy. While the young couple was engaging in sex, Mr. E entered the bedroom, asking if he could videotape them and then asked if he could engage in sexual activity with the girl. She declined. Against her will, Mr. E orally copulated and digitally penetrated her vagina. Victim was crying and told him to stop. Mr. E told law enforcement he’s had sex with two other underage girls. He received probation, but was then convicted and sent to prison for failure to register.

What the DMH “paper screener” ignored in concluding that Mr. E was non-dangerous:

• Sexual deviance: preoccupied with sexual activity of his adolescent nephew with his girlfriend
• Forces adolescent girl into sexual activity
• Is not deterred by victim’s cries to stop
• Says had sex with two other under-aged girls
• Does not follow probation mandates- can’t be safely supervised

Despite these risk factors, Mr. E was “paper screened” by the California DMH as cleared for release in early 2008.

Who pays the price for paper-screening this predator for release? Mr. E is paroled few months later in 2008. Less than a year later he starts engaging in similar behavior.  He was calling 3 teen-age girls around age 15 to send him sexual pictures, engaging in sexual talk with them, offering them money for lewd behavior  and spending time with them which was prohibited as a condition of his parole. The 3 girls reported he had been harassing them for 6 – 7 months.

---