Talk:Kidnapping of Tanya Nicole Kach: Difference between revisions
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
Perhaps I should explain that I disagree that objectivity requires treating sources with equal weight. No, I don't take the claims of the documentary very seriously, because I do think it is sensationalist, and sensationalizing child rape shows very poor judgement. But my opinions of the documentary don't matter and I haven't removed all references to it. I've only removed statements that seem to rely on it as objective truth and tried to balance the article out with the actual charges, guilty pleas, and conviction of Hose and credible sources such as factual newspaper articles.[[User:Moglet77|Moglet77]] ([[User talk:Moglet77|talk]]) 11:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC) |
Perhaps I should explain that I disagree that objectivity requires treating sources with equal weight. No, I don't take the claims of the documentary very seriously, because I do think it is sensationalist, and sensationalizing child rape shows very poor judgement. But my opinions of the documentary don't matter and I haven't removed all references to it. I've only removed statements that seem to rely on it as objective truth and tried to balance the article out with the actual charges, guilty pleas, and conviction of Hose and credible sources such as factual newspaper articles.[[User:Moglet77|Moglet77]] ([[User talk:Moglet77|talk]]) 11:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
I have had further time to think about this and the more I do so, the more I consider that this is an article that has been written from the depths of personal bias. |
|||
To begin with, describing Hose as a paedophile contradicts the definition of the same word as given by Wiki. The fact that you contradict another Wiki article where the definition is not in dispute undermines at least one of these articles. For you to persist with the use of the word, IMO requires that you "correct" the definition given in the other article, because you can't both be right. |
|||
But let's accept that your definition is correct for a moment, one of the hallmark traits of pedos is that once the victim has aged sufficiently, they will be dumped. Yet Kach was with him for 10 years. There is also the fact that Hose had access to other children throughout that period, but there are no known complaints of similar behaviour. |
|||
Turning to the issue of Kidnap, I have seen the Pennsylvania statute on this as well as read legal opinions on the issue. The statute covers both Kidnap and "interference in child custody". The particular statute specific to kidnap makes mention of "a child under the age of 14". So it is clear from that Kidnap and interference are treated as two different crimes, and that kidnap does not exclude somebody because because they are under a certain age. There is also the fact that if the "victim" leaves voluntarily with their "abductor", the law says it is not kidnap. |
|||
Then of course there is the matter that throughout the ten years that this took place, Hose regularly left the house to do a job of work. Had this been a kidnap, he would have required the help of somebody in the house to perpetuate the confinement. Yet no charges were ever brought on the rest of the family. Add that to comments from neighbours, local shopkeepers etc that Kach was often seen at liberty around the neighbourhood and was quoted as saying that Hose was her boyfriend. Do you not think that when Kach was "rescued", that one of the first things the police would have done was to interview the neighbours? |
|||
Regarding the documentary, again it is noteworthy that the only people who support Kach are her lawyer and her social worker, both of whom have a financial interest in doing so. Her lawyer then announces his defence to being sued for libel, is that all he is doing, is repeating the story she told to me. So even he is saying by default, that her version may not be true. The libel case arises from her father suing her for allegations made about him in a book, and he makes it clear that he thinks she is liar. |
|||
I've already commented on your argument, "I haven't seen any independant validation of your distinction as to what "pedo"s do as opposed to other child abusers", but I think it's worth revisiting. It appears that you are saying that they both have sex with underage children so they are the same. |
|||
I have a friend that paints house exteriors for a living. Leonardo Da Vinci was also a painter. Need I continue? The word "paedophile" has a specific meaning, and Hose does not meet that criteria in any legal or medical definition. |
|||
As for your description of the doc as "sensationalist", the subject was sensational to begin with, but this raises the question that if they had agreed with your version, would you have been so dismissive? |
|||
There is plenty of evidence to lead people to conclude that Kach might well have lied. I think that side of the story should have been put as well. When you see that Kach described Hose as her boyfriend without any coercion, a case might be made for Stockholm Syndrome as an explanation, but similarly, a case might be made that Kach was a willing participant and that after 10 years, she tired of her life and needed to re-integrate herself back into society. Instead, we have your narrative, which is deliberately made to be a pejorative as possible.[[Special:Contributions/46.7.85.68|46.7.85.68]] ([[User talk:46.7.85.68|talk]]) 09:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Apologies: == |
== Apologies: == |
Revision as of 09:45, 18 May 2016
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Comments
There are a number of sources that suggest that Kach was a willing participant, and it is noteworthy that Hose was charged with Statutory rape, which relates to consensual sex with an underage partner. The author of this article makes no mention of Kach's willingness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.244.12 (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- but Hose wasn't charged with statutory rape and he plead guilty to charges that involved coercion and violence. The main source that suggests Kach was willing was her rapist, and since he went on to plead guilty and never denied paedophilia, I think we can safely ignore that.Moglet77 (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The more I look at this, the more I ask myself how you can rationalise some of the claims you are making here. The fact that Hose is the only person to say that it was consensual is hardly remarkable, because nearly all "rapes" where consent is an issue is nearly always "he said, she said". Yet he kept her as prisoner for ten years in a house with three other people and there is no independent evidence that she did not consent. The case can be made that his family would lie to protect him, but the problem I have with that is that the family would have been suspects in assisting him, and they would have all been given a hard interrogation separately, and once the inconsistencies in their story started to surface, they would almost certainly have collapsed like a house of cards.
Similarly, you dismiss the claims made by neighbours that Kach did not appear to be confined because it is said in a documentary that you describe as sensationalist. Have you checked to see if they said it before they made the claim on TV. If they did so, would you still discredit them because they repeated in the doc?
As for your claims that interfering in child custody is the same as kidnapping, my reading on this is that it is a separate offence from kidnapping and is usually about dealing with familial kidnap and where a child leaves the family voluntarily to be with an other person against the wishes of the legal guardian(s). This distinguishes against the Kidnap law which does not apply if the "victim" left voluntarily. Kidnap also has much harsher penalties. It is noteworthy in extremis, that none of Hose's family were charged with any crime, and he was not charged with the more serious offence of Kidnap. It maybe conjecture on my part, but I suspect that the reason why he faced the lesser charge was because Kach would have been undermined by the neighbour's accounts as well as the Koch family accounts. Put yourself in the role of a juror for a minute. Ask yourself, how could the Hose family have not known of a kidnap? Then ask yourself, how could the police not have charged them as accomplices in what appears on the face of it, to be a most heinous crime? One possible explanation to that is that the family were not charged because they had issues with Kach's credibility and there was nothing in the interrogation of the family to support the fact that they were accomplices.46.7.85.68 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of the charges, or the history, I have to take issue with the use of the word "paedophilia" in this case. Paedophiles are people with an interest in pre-pubescent children. Tach had reached puberty. In addition, paedophiles almost always dump their victims as the victim gets older because they no longer fit the profile that the pedo is looking for. Regardless of who you believe in this case, the fact is that Hose "kept" her until she was well into womanhood for ten years. In addition had Hose been a paedophile, his job in the school gave him pretty much unlimited access to other victims, and yet this was the only known incident he was involved in. 46.7.85.68 (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I used the word paedophilia because Kach was a child under the age of consent at the time of her abduction. I know that some people like to insist on a distinction between pre-pubescent victims and older but still below the age of consent victims, and for psychologists that might be useful. Nonetheless, there wasn't an useful legal distinction. I haven't seen any independant validation of your distinction as to what "pedo"s do as opposed to other child abusers.Moglet77 (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I would also question the neutrality of the article especially regarding the use of the word "escaped". An alternative perfectly feasible scenario swhich has been put forward by others, is that she tired of the relationship, and in order to reintegrate into society which she had willfully absented herself from, she made herself out to be a victim."Escaped" suggested she was being held against her will in which case the State would have filed charges of kidnap and multiple rape instead of just statutory rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.254.114 (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- there may be imaginary scenarios in which a raped child was only "making herself out to be a victim" - but as we have the real world situation in which Hose plead guilty to several charges involving violence and coercion I have removed the fantasy ones from the article.Moglet77 (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I can't find anything in the cited stories which suggests Ms. Kach was not held against her will. Her captor was not charged with statutory rape, he was charged with three counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, one count of aggravated indecent assault, statutory sexual assault, interfering with the custody of a child, corruption of a minor and child endangerment. He pled guilty to all charges, but is serving time for only one of those (which is not uncommon in plea bargaining). Pleading guilty involved an admission of guilt in open court. Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse involves coercion or violence. The wikipedia page of the victim of kidnapping and sexual assault should not be hijacked by insinuations that, among other things, a minor child could consent to be held in a room for four years and used sexually by a man 25 years her senior. I am editing out the un-cited and offensive claims she was not being held against her will. They are unsupported. 72.179.24.215 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I note that you find the claims "offensive". Are you offended because you are being challenged about the article, or because of the nature of the crime? In either case, it might be fair to say that you should not let your own feelings interfere with the objectivity of the article. Nevertheless, your statement that claims she was not held against her will are "unsupported" need examination. In the TV doc, "Captive: The Sex Slave Girl", there are numerous accounts of neighbours seeing Tach wandering around the neighbourhood unaccompanied and telling people she was Hose's girlfriend for several years before her "escape".46.7.85.68 (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The claims I described as "offensive" was the explicit statement that Kach was not being held against her will. This was stated in the article as though it was undisputed fact. Whatever "Captive: The Sex Slave Girl" contains, it is not fair for the Wikipedia article to simply state the authors interpretation of that TV show as truth while ignoring the claims of Ms Kach herself, and the guilty plea of Hose. He after all plead guilty to three counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, statutory sexual assault, interfering with the custody of a child, corruption of a minor and child endangerment. I stated it was offensive, because it gives undue and unverified weight to the idea that Kach might be making her claims up. Given the crimes against her were severe, and their truth upheld by a conviction in a court of law, I think it was offensive to simply discount them as though they never happened due to a TV documentary that seems somewhat lightweightMoglet77 (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- If he wasn’t charged with statutory rape, then the article shouldn’t say he was.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The supposed victim wasn't held captive in a room for four years. This very article notes the fact that she was allowed to leave the confines of the room and the house, albeit infrequently. It's reasonable to infer from this that she was a willing participant in the affair on some level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.11.213 (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree with you, but the problem I have is the psychological issues: brainwashing, the Stockholm syndrome, perhaps threats (real or perceived), and her age. And we must be wary of including material which might be hurtful to the people involved. I don’t know enough about the psychological factors, but I think it would improve the article if that were included.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not usually a Wikipedia contributor, but the help pages say to use the Talk pages if you have concerns about an article. I feel there is a very unpleasant air of victim-blaming against a raped child in the way this article is written (and some of the comments on this page - "supposed victim" -WTF?). A child cannot consent to sex with a much older man.Moglet77 (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC) - and as it happens he was charged with crimes involving violent or coercive sexual assault. "In 2007, Hose, facing more than 100 years in prison, pleaded guilty to all charges -- three counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, statutory sexual assault, interfering with the custody of a child, corruption of a minor and child endangerment.
Is it "victim-blaming" or people questioning Tach's version of events? Apart from the statements given by the neighbours about seeing her moving "freely" around the area which suggests that Tach was a willing participant, it is noteworthy that no Kidnapping charges were pursued. Apart from Tach, the only people who know the truth of what took place are Hose and his family. Pure conjecture on my part, but I am pretty certain that when Hose was arrested, they would have been suspected as accomplices and interrogated accordingly. As far as I know, these were respectable people. Had there been a kidnap, then they would have to have been accomplices under these circumstances. Give the profile of the family, I think the likelihood is that if there had been a kidnap, it would have come out through hard and separate interrogation of the "accomplices". Regardless of that, Hose was in the wrong, but if Tach was a willing participant, it does tend to mitigate his crime.46.7.85.68 (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Hose was charged with and plead guilty to "Interference with custody of children", which is the charge used in Pennsylvania against child kidnappers (http://law.justia.com/codes/pennsylvania/2010/title-18/chapter-29/2904). So not only were kidnapping charges pursued but Hose plead guilty to them. In any case, Hose had already plead guilty to several crimes involving child rape with coercion (three counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, statutory sexual assault, corruption of a minor and child endangerment) so I don't see how this mitigates his crime in any significant way, or why as Wikipedia editors we would be interested in this mitigation.Moglet77 (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
He was sentenced to five to 15 years, with a maximum sentence date of Feb. 9, 2022, on a count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moglet77 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
"Kach's account of the abuse she stated she suffered at the hands of Hose grew increasingly elaborate in progressive interviews with police as "extra details" were remembered. Numerous police detectives and psychologists have stated this is typical with fraudulent allegations.[1]" I removed this comment as it is scientifically ignorant and victim-blaming. It is actually quite common for people to remember extra details with all sorts of crimes and people often have difficulty talking about traumatic events. I also feel there is an implication that Kach was making fraudulent allegations despite the perpetrator pleading guilty to all charges.Moglet77 (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
"In 2011, Hose plead guilty to charges of statutory rape and other charges relating to having sex with a minor. No charges relating to kidnap or false imprisonment were ever brought against him.[1]" I removed this as it is incorrect.Moglet77 (talk) 20:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC). I also removed the reference to statutory rape in the top - although two references to news sources were given, neither of the news sources indicated that Hose had been charged with statutory rape. I have linked to another news source as well - all three news sources report the actual charges .
I've made some very major changes to this article. Previously it heavily implied that Ms Koch was involved in a consensual relationship, and left out that Mr Hose plead guilty to acts of coercion and paedophila. There were also some references to Ms Koch's teenage behaviour that I removed as they were irrelevant and appeared to be victim-blaming. Most of the "controversy" appears to come from a sensationalist TV show titled "Captive: Sex Slave Girl" - I'm inclined to discount it on the exploitative title alone, but I've left enough of the material in to hopefully get a flavour of what its alleging without it being too hurtful or slanderous.Moglet77 (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Quite apart from the fact that you don't appear to know the difference between slander and libel, your comment again seems to lack objectivity. Regardless of whether the doc was "sensationalist" can you point to anything that is untrue in the doc? It's noteworthy that the only people who defended her, were those with a professional interest in doing so. I am not convinced by her, but then again, I wasn't there. All I can say is that bearing in mind the apparent lack of objectivity displayed by Moglet77 in these talk pages, I am surprised that the article itself does tend to put both sides of the story.46.7.85.68 (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
You are accusing me of a lack of objectivity for disregarding the views espoused in a documentary named "Captive: Sex Slave Girl" to favour the actual charges, guilty plea and conviction of Hose. Yes, I used slander in a metaphorical sense and not the legal definition, which may have been needlessly confusing. However, if you look at the pages above you can see that you (46.7.85.68) similarly did not seem to realise the meaning of various crimes Hose was charged with (I will not assume you were disregarding the fact that he plead guilty to raping a child and kidnap) so none of us are immune to error. Moglet77 (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I would still accuse you of lack of objectivity because of multiple comments in this talk page. One particularly glaring example, is you total misuse of the word "paedophile" as follows: "I used the word paedophilia because Kach was a child under the age of consent at the time of her abduction. I know that some people like to insist on a distinction between pre-pubescent victims and older but still below the age of consent victims, and for psychologists that might be useful. Nonetheless, there wasn't an useful legal distinction. I haven't seen any independant validation of your distinction as to what "pedo"s do as opposed to other child abusers".
The issue is not what a paedophile does compared to other child abusers, but who they target. If you are saying that they are same because they commit the same offences, you have either totally misunderstood the word, or have added your own bias.
That together with your misuse of the word slander, albeit in a metaphorical sense (whatever that means) then leads me to wonder about the accuracy of your definition that "interference in child custody" is legally defined as kidnapping. I am no legal scholar in these matters and quite clearly, neither are you or you would be more concerned about the accuracy of definition. It occurs to me that it can only be applied to persons under 18 and that it's more about custody issues rather than abduction or to deal with cases of minors who willing leave the custody of their parents to be with another adult. You might want to look at http://www.philadelphiacriminalattorney.com/kidnapping-family-crimes/kidnapping/ which states that "If the alleged victim went along voluntarily, then it is not kidnapping". I think that either has to question your objectivity or your ignorance, as it would appear that the law does distinguish between "interfering in child custody" and kidnap, which requires the element that you need to take the person against their will.
I am not a wiki editor so I do not know what steps need to be taken here, but I think it is clear that there is a lot of personal prejudice from you in this article. Can I suggest that you refer it to a senior editor for review.46.7.85.68 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps I should explain that I disagree that objectivity requires treating sources with equal weight. No, I don't take the claims of the documentary very seriously, because I do think it is sensationalist, and sensationalizing child rape shows very poor judgement. But my opinions of the documentary don't matter and I haven't removed all references to it. I've only removed statements that seem to rely on it as objective truth and tried to balance the article out with the actual charges, guilty pleas, and conviction of Hose and credible sources such as factual newspaper articles.Moglet77 (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I have had further time to think about this and the more I do so, the more I consider that this is an article that has been written from the depths of personal bias.
To begin with, describing Hose as a paedophile contradicts the definition of the same word as given by Wiki. The fact that you contradict another Wiki article where the definition is not in dispute undermines at least one of these articles. For you to persist with the use of the word, IMO requires that you "correct" the definition given in the other article, because you can't both be right.
But let's accept that your definition is correct for a moment, one of the hallmark traits of pedos is that once the victim has aged sufficiently, they will be dumped. Yet Kach was with him for 10 years. There is also the fact that Hose had access to other children throughout that period, but there are no known complaints of similar behaviour.
Turning to the issue of Kidnap, I have seen the Pennsylvania statute on this as well as read legal opinions on the issue. The statute covers both Kidnap and "interference in child custody". The particular statute specific to kidnap makes mention of "a child under the age of 14". So it is clear from that Kidnap and interference are treated as two different crimes, and that kidnap does not exclude somebody because because they are under a certain age. There is also the fact that if the "victim" leaves voluntarily with their "abductor", the law says it is not kidnap.
Then of course there is the matter that throughout the ten years that this took place, Hose regularly left the house to do a job of work. Had this been a kidnap, he would have required the help of somebody in the house to perpetuate the confinement. Yet no charges were ever brought on the rest of the family. Add that to comments from neighbours, local shopkeepers etc that Kach was often seen at liberty around the neighbourhood and was quoted as saying that Hose was her boyfriend. Do you not think that when Kach was "rescued", that one of the first things the police would have done was to interview the neighbours?
Regarding the documentary, again it is noteworthy that the only people who support Kach are her lawyer and her social worker, both of whom have a financial interest in doing so. Her lawyer then announces his defence to being sued for libel, is that all he is doing, is repeating the story she told to me. So even he is saying by default, that her version may not be true. The libel case arises from her father suing her for allegations made about him in a book, and he makes it clear that he thinks she is liar.
I've already commented on your argument, "I haven't seen any independant validation of your distinction as to what "pedo"s do as opposed to other child abusers", but I think it's worth revisiting. It appears that you are saying that they both have sex with underage children so they are the same. I have a friend that paints house exteriors for a living. Leonardo Da Vinci was also a painter. Need I continue? The word "paedophile" has a specific meaning, and Hose does not meet that criteria in any legal or medical definition.
As for your description of the doc as "sensationalist", the subject was sensational to begin with, but this raises the question that if they had agreed with your version, would you have been so dismissive?
There is plenty of evidence to lead people to conclude that Kach might well have lied. I think that side of the story should have been put as well. When you see that Kach described Hose as her boyfriend without any coercion, a case might be made for Stockholm Syndrome as an explanation, but similarly, a case might be made that Kach was a willing participant and that after 10 years, she tired of her life and needed to re-integrate herself back into society. Instead, we have your narrative, which is deliberately made to be a pejorative as possible.46.7.85.68 (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Apologies:
My apologies for havinng mis-named Mz Kach as "Tach" in my preceding comments.46.7.85.68 (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- Start-Class biography articles
- Biography articles without infoboxes
- Wikipedia requested photographs of people
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- Start-Class Pennsylvania articles
- Low-importance Pennsylvania articles
- Start-Class Pittsburgh articles
- Low-importance Pittsburgh articles
- WikiProject Pittsburgh articles