Mention the phrase "sex offender," and many parents think of a suspicious man trying to give a child candy.
"They're looking for the stranger in the truck pulling up at the curb," Assistant Dist. Atty. David Melton said.
But a case that ended this week in District Court serves as a reminder that, in most sex crimes, the victim knows the offender. The case of John T. Whitehead also illustrates the fine line between innocent contact with children and sexual misconduct - and that it's possible for people to cross the line under parents' noses.
Whitehead, 30, a former resident of Westgate Apartments, 4641 W. Sixth St., was sentenced Thursday to two years' probation for one count of aggravated indecent solicitation of a child. Prosecutors initially charged him with three counts of child molesting, alleging that he repeatedly sought out physical contact with children in the complex - wrestling them, asking them to go down the slide at the playground, putting them on his shoulders - as a way to arouse himself. He also kept thousands of pictures of children cut out of catalogs and newspapers.
The case was different from other sex crimes involving children, prosecutors said, because Whitehead wasn't charged with touching children inappropriately or having them touch him. He would have contact with the children in broad daylight, often with others nearby at the complex's playground, then go home and gratify himself.
Danette Seymour, a former resident of Westgate Apartments, says the apartments' management brushed aside her concerns about John T. Whitehead, whose case involving aggravated indecent solicitation of a child ended this week in District Court.
"There's a line, and he was trying not to go over that line," Melton said. "We thought he did."
Sense of 'safety'
The Westgate Apartment complex, opened in the mid-1990s, is federally designated housing for people with lower incomes. More than half the residents have some kind of assistance, according to one resident's estimate.
The fact that anyone at the six-building complex allowed their children to play with a 30-year-old man may seem strange. But former tenant Danette Seymour said many residents were single mothers like her who were grateful to have someone who would supervise their children in the communal playground for short periods of time.
"They'd say, 'Here's this nice guy, he's going to give me a 20-minute break or whatever,'" she said. "You have the sense of community safety. The kids have no obvious concerns that John did this or John did that. You didn't see anything or hear anything."
Whitehead has a learning disability and difficulty controlling emotional outbursts, according to courtroom testimony, but he was seen as a community leader in the complex. He was second-in-charge of the residents' association, and he often patrolled the grounds at night to make sure residents were following the rules.
"He'd report people for various policy violations," prosecutor Melton said. "He was kind of the eyes and ears of the management. : He just kind of insinuated himself into that community. The kids loved him. The parents liked the fact that he would take care of their kids and they didn't have to pay him."
Management dispute
In 1999, a group of single mothers including Seymour came forward and filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development alleging that the complex's management was discriminating against them by giving them eviction notices for alleged rules violations. Seymour said Whitehead was actively involved in that matter because he was reporting the alleged rules violations to management.
Seymour and the mothers of two victims who spoke in court this week alleged that the complex's management brushed their concerns about Whitehead aside.
They said that when Whitehead would become angry about something he would make threats. But Seymour said the management's response was that Whitehead was harmless and, because of his good standing with the complex's management, people who didn't like him had two choices: live with him, or move out.
"Not everybody's in a position to move," she said.
The complex's manager did not return a phone call Friday seeking comment.
Friend speaks out
Complex resident Jan Pool, the head of the residents' association and a friend of Whitehead's for the past year, has a different view from Seymour's. She said Whitehead was an asset to the community - helping plan events such as a community bingo and Bible study.
He cleaned, he lifted heavy items, changed high light bulbs, and cooked for a blind woman, she said. Pool said that when Whitehead made threats, it was because he had been deliberately provoked by children in the complex, and she accused the mother of one of the victims of not supervising her children enough.
Pool said that, knowing Whitehead's mental limitations, she doubted that he had the intent to seek out contact with the kids for deliberate sexual gratification.
"I believe it was something that was an immature reflex in an immature man," she said. "I'm just grateful that he knew to walk away from it, and what he did in his own home, he did in his own home.
"This is an adult male with a child's mind," she said. "You would have to be in John's mind to know if that was a purposeful, thought-through action or whether he was just playing on the playground with other kids his mental age."
But prosecutor David Melton said, "He admitted in court that he knew it was wrong. He would seek these people out for his sexual gratification."
Prosecutors alleged there were three child victims in the case, all of whom lived at the complex between 2001 and 2005.
"We think that he had access to more kids than that," Melton said. "Those were the only ones we could identify as victims. Some of the kids had moved away. In some cases, the parents didn't want the kids talking to the officers."
Whitehead will be ordered to undergo sexual-offender treatment as part of his probation and will have to register as a sex offender.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
poolside (anonymous) says…
"The parents liked the fact that he would take care of their kids and they didn't have to pay him." How does this comment support the quote of "vunerable parents" who didn't see a mentally challenged man's manners as a threat? Easy, pure and simple laziness on the part of the parent. And how is this the management's fault? That part is totally beyond me!
Brian Peppers spoke about what the mentally challenged who are NOT mainstreamed do, and how they would be perceived if mainstreamed. I think this is the crux of the matter. The article suggests John did not have enough discernment as to when he was an adult in a child's body, or when his play might cause that adult body to react. But that he recognized when to walk away.
Mentally challenged people are working harder than most of us to keep a balance in their lives. How can a mother who just "wants a break from her kids" pass such nasty judgement on someone who did them a favor. And do the kids support their mother's comments? Notibly the paper never said. Was it a part of the case? If we weren't in court, how do we know?
Is John sorry, I believe he is. Will he get help, it is court mandated. Will this be an issue again for this specific individual, only if the system fails him.
smitty (anonymous) says…
"There's a line, and he was trying not to go over that line," Melton said. "We thought he did."
Oh my god, I just had a thought that I know is wrong!! My thought, the DA needs to be hung for this. Will I too be prosecuted for a thought that is wrong?
Yeoman2 (anonymous) says…
Right on, Smitty.
I am John T.C. Whitehead's father. Smitty said it. My son was pilloried in court and in this newspaper for his thoughts! no one accused him. I have copies of the "legwork"police reports that police officers did. He was "interviewed" by officers who refused him guaranteed counsel with an attorney or even his case worker. He revealed personal thoughts to officers because he has always had high respect for police officers and the law. He had no idea of the viciousness of the force he was dealing with, that officers were gathering information to use against him. BVut he was jailed by the da, four months after the search. It took them FOUR months to fabricate their case. How many of us could defend ourselves against this sort of intimidation and cooerscion? Does anyone remember the lessons of history, of Germany in the 1930's? Does the Gestapo ring a bell with anyone?
In the current national hysteria about this type of crime, the killings of childern in Florida and other states, the recent flap over Leroy Hendricks, and of course, our favorite villian, Michael Jackson (who had enough money to hire lawyers to aqquit himself of his outrageous behavior) My son has been caught up in the witch hunt by law-enforcement officials who thought they had another Michael Jackson, then found out differently, and had to cover their backsides. The whole case was based on what he thought, the DA has admited that. In the search of his apartment, while he was at Stormont-Vail hospital for treatment, the police had a search warrent signed by Judge Fairchild. Virtually none of the items they took were mentioned on the warrant, a clear violation of the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They did not find any of the items mentioned on the warrant except identifying papers as to the occupant of the apartment. i have written proof of this, copies of the search warrant and the inventory that the police themselves made of the items taken.
Is this America? Do we have constitutional rights against self-incrimination? Are we all responsible to legal action for our thoughts? Do we put credibility in hysterical and emotional people who do not know the facts? Are we immune to law-enforcement officials who are trying to cover their butts? I think not. My son was forced into this conviction because of his thoughts. Can they do this to you?
trueninetiesgirl (anonymous) says…
okay so he went and took care of his self sexually in private after contact with children, but what happens when that just doesnt take care of his sexual problem?? how do we know that he wont cross the line and hurt a child?????
fairylight (anonymous) says…
I find this both sad and troubleing. Yes, it is repugnant to imagine an adult going home to masterbate , after haveing been turned on by playing with children. however, the key phrase is 'Going home to' . How is what J.W. did worse than the brazen stares or lewd remarks made by , say constuction workers, when a good looking girl walks past them? Yes, this focused on children. Yes, I agree Mr. Whitehead probably needs more supervision or less access to children, BUT...I cannot be comfortable with the DA and police manufacturing these charges. It just simply seems wrong. Is no one else uncomfortable with the manner in which Mr. Whitehead was charged?
sd123 (anonymous) says…
WOW! Are you the same father that John was telling everyone abused him and then he burned you up in a house fire? Well, if so, it's good to know that story was not true.
poolside (anonymous) says…
True nineties girl raises a valid point. I believe that you have to look for remorse in the defendant, any defendent for any crime. And there you will find your answer. Was there remorse, was it heartfelt, was it deep enough to want to seek change?
Well Dad, you were there, and you know when he is faking, what do you think?
What is sd123 talking about?
It is enormously outragous to imagine ANY disabled person being interrogated without counsel, especially when it was asked for!!! Boo Hiss on the police!! You know better and I am surprised anything got as far as it did! I HATE dishonest police!!! I am too embarrassed to call YOU Lawrence' finest!!
Yeoman2 (anonymous) says…
Poolside, it is true that there was a fire at our residence in 1998, it was not caused by John. It was my neighbor's house on fire and the blaze was whipped by a high month of June wind through my home and caused severe damage. That night I was out running errands with John and his mother called me when we returned to his apartment. This is just another faksehood.
Yeoman2 (anonymous) says…
scuse me, type error.... should be "falsehood"
daddax98 (anonymous) says…
"I believe that you have to look for remorse in the defendant, any defendent for any crime"
I assmue that you mean those convicted of crimes and this only refers to the sentencing stage. Innocent until proven gulity?
sd123 (anonymous) says…
The case of John T. Whitehead also illustrates the fine line between innocent contact with children and sexual misconduct - and that it's possible for people to cross the line under parents' noses.
"There's a line, and he was trying not to go over that line," Melton said. "We thought he did."
Whitehead has a learning disability and difficulty controlling emotional outbursts, according to courtroom testimony, but he was seen as a community leader in the complex. He was second-in-charge of the residents' association, and he often patrolled the grounds at night to make sure residents were following the rules.
"He'd report people for various policy violations," prosecutor Melton said. "He was kind of the eyes and ears of the management. : He just kind of insinuated himself into that community.
Hmmm..... I'm thinking here..... If Mr. Whitehead "insinuated himself into the community", declaring himself the community police officer (so to speak) and then repeatedly reported lease violations to management, I'd be inclined to think Mr. Whitehead abused his "authority" to gain access to children. That could have been the very reason why he was able to continue his fantasy without being caught in the past. Perhaps because of his workings with management, management refused to deal with John in an appropriate manner. The people who reported John's lease violations were not given the same consideration because John was afterall, a tattle tale who had the communities "best interests" in hand.
I'm confused, somehow, this seems like he knew exactlly what he was doing and even went further by gaining the trust of management and others in order to continue his fantasy. Maybe I'm wrong. hmmm Sounds to me like the fine line is getting finer and finer.
hk45 (anonymous) says…
Mr. Whitehead,
I wonder how the case was even charged by the District Attorney's Office if it was such a bad investigation? I would expect the District Attorney's Office would not have charged it if there were constitutional violations you state happen.
I wonder why your son's attorney did not fight the charges instead of accepting the plea deal talked about in the paper if it was such a horrible investigation? Why did the judge accept the plea if he had done nothing wrong?
I tend to think maybe your son has issues and the court helped find away for him to deal with him. As it said in the paper he admited to having a problem and said he had put it "on the back burner." Now he will be able to get the help he needs and the kids of the community will be safer.
Why blame the system for doing its job when your son is the one who needs help?
poolside (anonymous) says…
to daddax98- definitely innocent until proven guilty!! Definitely! Thank you for correcting me.
As to the why in the plea agreement, I think we would all have to have "been there done that" to understand, yes?
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
when myself and Mrs. gnome finished this story we both had the same reaction: this article suffered one glaring weakness in its writing. that is, it did not communicate 'how this fellow was caught in the first place.' and, so reading the above comments, was he caught by his own behavior in interviews? if so, why were police interviewing him? and one poster here, anybody getting this interogation should have a lawyer present, not merely some with a handicap. I hope the JW will add to this article and answer these questions. bye bye!
poolside (anonymous) says…
Again I stand corrected by my word choice. And I apologize. Yes it is the law that everyone be mirandised. Not just the disabled.
What provokes me though, is that the police should know when they are working with a disabled individual and walk an even tighter rope of perfectionism. Well, I guess fault can be found even with that statement, because it still isn't fair and equitable. Still, shouldn't something have been done to not have us in this chat room wondering if the system failed the children, the general public, the disabled, or all of the above?
After speaking with someone more closely connected to this matter, it is my understanding that this investigation started with a complaint of behavior, but that the only "qualifying evidence" was from the coercised discussions with the defendant, again, while not properly defended. Also, it is my understanding that no child EVER found themselves in harm's way. They were, in fact, unable to support the claims of their parents. And due to some procedure not followed properly by the investigators their testimony became circumstantial at best.
So a mentally challenged man tells on himself of a behavior behind closed doors, and how he recognizes to keep it behind closed doors, but the DA feels that in some way this has "crossed the line."
It does make one ponder.
Yet and still, for reasons still unclear even after speaking with this "connection", a plea was made and the judge had little choice but to proceed.
poolside (anonymous) says…
To Brian Peppers- you have made a strong point. I cannot say I disagree. Children's safety must be considered.
And while not intended to slight your comments, I would also like to see is every peeping tom with a restraining order on all windows or doors of any kind; and every man who has "rubbed off" with a girlie magazine, no matter in what setting he has done so, kept from all women unless supervised by another adult (preferably female), but definitely not allowed any physical contact with a female.
I know I would feel safer, much safer.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
thank you "Poolside."
images of this burst into my mind reading this and this thread of posts:
a man who perhaps has some impulse control problems talks to a police officer, says he has fantasies of killing his neighbor. neighbor has never had one hair of his head harmed. sitting there, the police officer hears this fantasy and treats it as a confession and arrests the first guy for attempted murder? does start to sound like a "thought crime?"
Buggie (anonymous) says…
I myself have known John for awhile. I am a married mother and I am very disappointed in the ones who say they would trust him with their children or use is mental status as an Excuse. John has threatened on several occasions to harm himself and others as a way of attention. When this all started he would not quit talking about it and made himself look guitier. As for his mental status hogwash. If he is in his right mind to have keys to the complexes offices, peoples apartments, and be looked at as "part time security" as well as doing all the work for the managers then it is an excuse and a poor one to use his mental state as a defense. He has several times stated to me and my husbacnd that he was not taking his medication and that he was thinking about going home and taking all of his medication at once. He does it for attention. He knows excactly what he is doing at all times. He was trusted with alot at the complex which makes his quite competent in this matter as for the false allegations of thousands of pictures we really need to look at that. who cares if it was thousands or 5 that were found. Its pretty sad when you cant trust that your children cant even play where they live with out fear. Even supervised. this is a small complex and everyone looks out for each other there is no parental fault in this matter at all. Just the fault of a man who hides behind a excuse. He thinks it gives him the right to do what he wants because he "doesnt know any better" Bull then dont let him in the offices or the apartments or do the maintence at the pool etc. He knows better and is taking you all for fools.
smitty (anonymous) says…
Buggie, what did he do to hurt your child or any of the other children? Do you know if the photos were suggestive, sexual, nude? The JW reports that the photos were of the children at the complex and magazine photos of children but nothing indicated sexual content. Do you know differently?
Many mentally ill (bi-polar and schizophrenic especially) will threaten or actually save up their meds to commit a suicide attempt or opt to go off their meds until they act out so severely that the system is forced into action. That action is not started until law enforcement, srs, etc is contacted. What you discribed of him sounds like someone needed to contact adult protective services.
I'm a parent of a bi-polar adult child and have had to ask for intervention myself. We need more education on the mentally ill and how to cope.
It sounds like your arguement is directed at the management of the complex and Whitehead is the means to satisfy your displeasure at what happened. Sorry for you, Whitehead and others that the managers were exploiting Whitehead.
Buggie (anonymous) says…
My comments are not towards management but of John himself. I also have a bipolar manic depressive schizophrenic family member that I have lived with and taken care of and know when the system should help someone and when that person needs to help himself. As I said and I stand behind it its all excuses and YES I know of the investigation VERY well my children were interviewed by the Lawrence police dept and I feel they did a very fine job. They never implicated John in the least cut him down or accused. They did however make us aware of the situation (in which John knew about and still persisted to try to come in contact with the children. ) He would make excuses and blame the situation on every one else but himself. The guidelines for a Bipolar person to live on their own are very clear. He is competent. He was at the complex even after the court told him that he could not be. That was of Johns own doing. He knows better but still puts himself in the situations he should not be in and he will tell you what the court said or say I shouldnt go over to the playground and 5 minutes later he is there. Then I have also heard the excuse several times "I have to go take a nap" he goes home and comes back a half hour later. No one is to blame but john himself and he will not help himself until people stop putting the blame on everyone else but John. I also believe him and his family should have obeyed the court order that we were told about by LPD and stayed away from the complex. Although I do not agree with the managements decision to keep him there. By law they cannot do anything until the police get involved. This time they did and action was taken. John is a smart guy. He will try to keep to himself for the 2 years. But what about after that??? And what about after going home and relieving himself doesnt work for him any more???? I know all about the pictures and so on. My children were among them. The problem is with John and NO ONE else and for him to get the help that is required of him people need to tell him he has no one to blame but himself and he needs to deal with it go to counseling or seek inpatient treatment. I have never heard of a reformed or recovering pedofile. Have you?
smitty (anonymous) says…
I still don't see how this man is a pedophile. What am I missing? Did John hurt any of the children? Were the photos porn or suggestive?
**And what about after going home and relieving himself doesnt work for him any more????** Did he ever do or say anything inappropriate toward the children?
**I also believe him and his family should have obeyed the court order that we were told about by LPD and stayed away from the complex.** What court order are the police referring? Did you not know of this order prior to the lpd questioning? I don't recall any of this in the news report.
whatdoyouthink (anonymous) says…
In the first article, it states he had bubbles on the pictures saying, does it tickle?
whatdoyouthink (anonymous) says…
Most of the photographs were of young boys. Many had been decorated with word balloons coming from the children's mouths with phrases such as "Does it tickle
smitty (anonymous) says…
And how is this child abuse/pedophilia? Whithead did not reportedly persoally confront the children with his bubbles.
I have naked photos of me and my cousin form my childhood. I have nude photos of both my children, male and female. I hvae catalogs of hundreds of children. Penny's, Sears, Kohl's, specialty catalogs. I say hi to infants and children while on a walk on the sidewalks of Lawrence. I go alone to my own home to masterbate. Am I a pedophile?
whatdoyouthink (anonymous) says…
Do those pictures of children excite you to where you have to go masterbate? That is the difference. No matter what, children should not make anybody sexually excited. If it does you are a very sick person. And should not be able to be around children, especially by yourself. It is not anybody's elses problem, and the child should not have to suffer because of the person's problem. I am not saying that he actually abused the children. I am just stating the fact that given time, he probably would have. Just because he is able to control it now, doesn't mean he can control it in the future. Given more and more leway, something would have happened. He even admitted that he knows he has a problem. Not for sure why you can't admit that. He needs some expert help, keep on his meds, and stay the hell away from children. If he knows he has a problem, can admit the fact, then he should have enough knowledge to keep away from them. He is playing with them to get excited, so he is using them in a way. It's just sick. I can't even imagine how a child could ever make anybody sexually arroused.
whatdoyouthink (anonymous) says…
smitty, how would you feel if somebody came and told you that they like playing with your child because it gets them sexually aroused? Wouldn't you be upset and wouldn't you feel that your child was violated in some sense? Granted he didn't come up to the parents and tell them that is why he was playing with them. But now that he admitted that they make him sexually aroused, isn't it the case. You still think it is okay for him to play with children?
smitty (anonymous) says…
If this man had made such a statement I would have warned my children, warned the other parents and management in the complex, called srs child and adult protective services. But he didn't make any such statement or action prior to his persecution, uhh, make that prosecution.
He's mentally and emotionally compromised, that's why he's on a disablity. We need to learn how to handle such a situation without criminalizing the mentally ill. If this was someone who didn't have an impeded developement I would have called the law and all the other agengies mentioned above. I don't trust any one agency to do the job so I get them all involved as a checks and balance.
Would I be a pedophile to interact, photograph, and enjoy the company of children but go home to masterbate having done no harm to a child by word or action, no child porn only catalog picture of children with a comic book balloon conversation? Does this society call for me to be prosecuted prior to the commitment of a crime only because it is a potential? If that is the case start locking up every citizen. We all have that potential.
whatdoyouthink (anonymous) says…
I don't think that you see what I am saying. I am saying now since he has admitted to having a problem. It should be delt with in the correct manner. He should not be aloowed around children unsupervised. I am not saying that he actually did something to the children other than use their innocent childhood playful interaction to arouse himself.
smitty (anonymous) says…
I have no problem with this man seeking help. It is the prosecution of him for having had a thought but no real criminal actions that I've been addressing all along.
I'm done here.
Buggie (anonymous) says…
I would like to know who smitty is because obviously they do not have all their facts straight. He WAS ordered not to be on the property at westgate or any other section 8 housing complex for that matter. I was told this by the investigating officer that has been working on this with us. a pedofile is anyone that seeks out children to make themselves aroused. John admitted in court that this is what he did while living there. So the answer to your question smitty of are you a pedofile depends on if you seek it out like he did. If you just see children and it arouses you then you are a simple sick pervert. If you seek it out then you are no better than him. I believe all information that you have obtained has been from the media and the media alone and heresay. Im telling you straight. John is a smart man and WILL take responsiblity for his actions or end himself in jail which is where I feel anyone who seeks children out for their pleasure belongs. If you know john then he has you convinced and delusional as well. I agree with "whatdoyouthink" he is sick but rehab will not help him. once this is a pattern you cannot be rehabilitated. Like I said there are no reformed or recovering pedofiles.
smitty (anonymous) says…
I do not know Whitehead. The example I
used was a rhetorical question.
Posted by Buggie (anonymous) on August 24, 2005 at 8:17 p.m...I also believe him and his family should have obeyed the court order that we were told about by LPD and stayed away from the complex...
I then stated...What court order are the police referring? Did you not know of this order prior to the lpd questioning? I don't recall any of this in the news report.
You never replied. Obviously I don't have all the facts, never claimed to so if you would answer the question based on your first hand knowledge we can all be informed. What the hell is wrong with you that you can't get this in your head that I am asking you based on your claim to have first hand knowledge. Here's a chance to make an intelligent explanation of the events. Go for it!
Buggie (anonymous) says…
DUH here it is and I stated that lpd told the people that were involved. it wasnt in the news report. As are alot of things that are not common public knowledge. anyway I am done with this and do not want to reply again to ignorance.