Kitsap Crime and Justice

The Kitsap Sun staff writes about crime and criminal justice issues.
Subscribe to RSS

Former Navy Chief Plea: What Should Punishment Be?

April 19th, 2007 by josh farley

Naval Base Kitsap’s former top enlisted man pleaded guilty to attempted child rape Thursday morning in Kitsap County Superior Court.

Arrested by Bremerton Police just more than a month ago, Edward E. Scott, then the Navy’s local Command Master Chief, was caught in a sex sting at a local hotel before dawn March 16.

But what does the guilty plea mean?

Scott had been chatting for about at least a month with what he thought was a mother of a 12-year-old twin boy and girl, and had arranged a meeting for sex with the trio, according to police reports.

What he didn’t know was the “mother” was an undercover agent working with the Internet Crimes Against Children task force, assigned to look for child predators in a chat room called “fetish 12.” Scott was arrested by Bremerton Police detectives near the hotel’s lobby, and found in possession of 3 condoms.

Prosecutors will recommend jail time — 90 months to be exact. His defense attorneys will recommend treatment known as a “SSOSA” which would allow Scott to miss most of the jail time if he complies with the program, also according to prosecutors.

A judge will ultimately make the decision. But where do you stand?

Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

81 Responses to “Former Navy Chief Plea: What Should Punishment Be?”

  1. John T. Van Warrebey Says:

    As a Retired Chief Petty Officer, he is a disgrace to the US Navy and to the Chief’s community.

    He should be busted down to E-1 and given a BCD with NO retirement or benefits.

  2. A Sailor Says:

    I’ve posted this before. Everyone needs to make sure they contact the Naval Kitsap Commanding Officer and let your voice be heard. Otherwise, he will be hooked up and allowed to retired. It has happened before and it will happen again!!!

  3. Sharon O'Hara Says:

    I stand wherever the wife stands on punishment.
    I hope her wishes are factored into the ultimate decision.
    Sharon O’Hara

  4. anonymous Says:

    I hope the Navy will can his behind! It will definitely set a precedent. But as A Sailor said, he will get the hookup and get to quietly retire with his full rank…I have no doubt that is what will happen.

  5. Sharon O'Hara Says:

    He could be allowed to retire?
    Why would he not be dishonorably discharged?
    If a chain is only as strong as its weakest link…what does it say about the Navy if the Chief is the weakest link and he is allowed to retire?
    He did the right thing for the Navy by pleading guilty and I hope that will count for something.
    Sharon O’Hara

  6. SCPO (ret) Says:

    It must be nice to see things so black and white and have a cut a dried opinion. To get information from the paper or media reports or second hand and pass judgment without regard to family is in my opinion immoral. What Ed did or was about to do is incomprehensible. I am in NO WAY condoning it or making excuses. And he will pay for that crime.

    But to automatically say he should be dishonorably discharged (especially not without a court-martial as would be required) or not be allowed to retire at any rank (which would require a demotion and above mentioned court-martial) would be a disservice to his family who also SERVED with him throughout his entire career. I do not think he should benefit WHATSOEVER from retirement however his wife deserves to get something from her dedication beside a backhanded “too bad your husband screwed it up for you, you get nothing”

    Why don’t we show a little compassion for the family and what they are going through. At least acknowledge them while you once again verbally blast Ed Scott.

  7. Miriam Says:

    A Sailor -

    Could you post a link to that information here so that concerned citizens can make their voices heard? I think that’s a great idea, and I would definitely be willing to make a phone call. My father was in the Navy, and it’s fairly insulting to see such horrible things marring the reputation of the military he so lovingly served for so many years of his life.

  8. Mark Williams Says:

    I’m not sure that 90 months is enough for what’s going on here. Fostering a sexual relationship with a 12 year old girl as well as one between a 12 year old boy and his mother. What was this person thinking?

  9. Mark Williams Says:

    What was this person thinking? Attempting to foster a sexual relationship with a 12 year old girl is bad enough, but to facilitate one between a 12 year old boy and his mother? I’m so very glad this sexual offender was found out when he was in the sting. It begs the questions though, what else has this person done and where? What lives has he actually destroyed (not counting his children’s) with his sexual predation? Doesn’t the Navy do some sort of back ground check on people before posting them to a position of great responsibility?

  10. Retired Navy Says:

    Everyone has a twist on this story, however, I must ask you the readers “When was the last time you saw someone go to prison for thinking about committing a crime?????” I know Ed is a loser, that was obvious from all of his talk when he checked onboard the Abraham Lincoln. He broke the rules, is a poor leader, and got caught up in crude, crude, criminal thoughts. His actions leading up to his arrest were dishonorable, lascivious, brought discredit to the Navy and shame to his family.
    They tracked this guy primarily on Navy time, with Navy assets (computer and blackberry) utilized for monitoring and evidence. He should get hammered at a military court martial reduced to E1 (for his wife to have health and dental insurance) and do some hard time.

  11. Sharon O'Hara Says:

    SCPO…your points are well taken…
    It is also my opinion that his family served too.

    Maybe it is time to recognize in a financial manner, the spouses of career service men and women that dilemmas such as this one won’t happen again….that all the years of devoted service by the spouse cannot be thrown out through the dishonorable actions of the service member.

    Somehow his wife will have to get a retirement … the Navy…Congress?… has to provide for her and others like her.

    Can the Navy award him a Honorable Discharge under these circumstances?
    Sharon O’Hara

  12. Elaine Wolcott-Ehrhardt Says:

    This guy is clearly one sick person. He plead guilty and will be jailed, get out and probably be a danger again. Sex predators from what I have heard have a very low sucess rate with treatment. Thank God he is off the streets for now. Wonder how many real victims there have been in his lifetime. I find it hard to believe he woke up one day and became a pediphile.

  13. George Says:

    Not everything is as simple as the media would like us to think. These internet stings are catching people who have done nothing but fantasize and have “dirty” thoughts.

    As someone else said above, we are urging 7 plus years of prison time for a person who is only guilty of thinking of committing a crime. Pretty strong punishment for a crime without a victim.

    The definition of entrapment is arresting a person for committing a crime that would never have occurred without the police setup. These internet stings are doing exactly that. They are catching people (many in their early 20′s) who have no criminal record or history of violence and getting extremely high conviction rates because of the shame attached to the charges. If the accused fights and loses, they risk years in prison, so they accept plea bargains for significant jail time, a felony, and registering as sex offenders. The statistics show that more than 90% never re-offend. Are these really predators or are we creating crime?

  14. A Sailor Says:

    While I agree his wife should be entitled to something, medical care etc. E9 Scott needs and deserves nothing. I wonder if he is aware of the treatment he may get when current imates find out why he is in.

  15. Dr Monica E Berninghaus Says:


    He was the TOP master chief of the entire Naval Kitsap Base – and it is VERY disrespectful what he did!

    He should serve ALL the jail time and be busted down to E-1!

  16. Federal employee Says:

    Family members do not “serve” in the military; they are not on active duty. Therefore, they are not entitled to a retirement benefit if the active duty member loses his right to one. He should have thought of how his actions would affect his family before he contemplated anything illegal. His wife and children should have full medical checkups, and she should run, not walk, to a divorce lawyer. Through my personal experience and my friends’, women are more resilient than they believe they are and are fully capable of finding employment and providing for their children. The Navy or Congress providing something special for her? Absolutely not! Rules are rules and once exceptions are allowed, good order is gone.

  17. Charles T Weaver Says:

    On Scott. Child predators should get harsh punishment. Based on what I have heard about this case, he does need evaluation and appropriate treatment,but that should not mitigate his prison time. But this is not a violent crime offender. And I wonder about putting someone like this in with cutthroats and murderers and mentally deranged criminals. Is there a separate facility for people like this? Regarding his Navy benefits, they should be totally eliminated and he should have a dishonorable discharge. And of course he must be on the child sex offender list.

  18. Jim Hines Says:

    I will only comment on the punishment outside of this man’s service to our country. As the person who has attempted to get “Jessica’s Law” passed in our state, his prison sentence should be the maximum allowable. Until we begin to send an unequivocal message that our children are not sex objects, this filth will continue. I have met countless victims of childhood sex abuse, and they are scarred for life. While the acts did not occur, they certainly were about to. Persons in position of authority or trust who then prey on children should not be eligible for treatment alternatives. Citizens who are interested in justice should be concerned that the Department of Corrections specialist will recommend a Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA). This would allow the predator to receive less than a year in county jail followed by community-based treatment. This abomination of “justice” has, in part, led to the flood of sex offenders (18,000+) in Washington communities. Punishment and justice must preceed any concern over what might be good for the perpetrator. Keep your eye on this case and hope that the prosecutor recommends the maximum sentence, but my prediction is that the “system” will seek the easy way out and seek a SSOSA. SSOSA has been used in over 5,000 in cases of child rape and molestation since it was enacted by our state legislature in the mid 1980′s. It is one of the worst laws on the books in our state. I could not get our elected officials to embrace “Jessica’s Law” even though over 30 states have enacted this “no-nonsense” response into law.

  19. CPO (Ret) Says:

    As a retired Chief Petty Officer, I am appalled that this man is being referred to as anything other than what he is, a Sexual Predator of Children! By Navy regulations, he is not only guilty, as he has plead in the civilian courts, but he should later face the military justice system for multiple related charges. While he is in jail and prison, he is considered UA, (unauthorized absence), unauthorized use of a military computer for deviant purposes, disobeying a lawful order, and bringing discredit upon the Navy among many other charges the Naval Investigative Service and Navy Legal Office can come up with. There should be empathy for the family, but society as a whole hasn’t identified what to do with any innocent victim, other than allow them to follow the civil courts system. Let him serve his 90 months branded as a CHILD MOLESTER, and then he can face a Military Courts Martial and spend a little more time doing hard labor before he gets a reduction in rate to E-1, forfeiture of ALL pay and allowances followed by the Bad Conduct Discharge. After all that, may he be forever inconvenienced by concerned neighbors who don’t want a sexual predator in their community!

  20. Carolyn Lightfoot Says:

    This man should not only serve the 90 months – or more – not less that the courts give to him – but when he gets out of there – he should be thrown into the brig and serve a lot jore time!

    What a disgrace to the U.S. Navy – and all the incredible people who serve!!

    I know more info about this man – as I know someone who served with him – and if the world only knew!!!

    They should not allow him to retire – he should be stripped down to the lowest rank possible – and then given a dishonorable discharge!!

    He is one sick individual – and it makes me even angrier that he blames his wife for his deeds!!!


  21. CL Says:

    It’s interesting reading some of the posts – some people say one thing – and then their next post says the opposite of what they just said!

    As for “when was the last time someone went to prison for thinking about doing a crime” – Scott did do a crime – and a terrible one at that!

    He thought he was chatting with a child on line – he told their mother what he wanted to do with them – etc. That is the crime!

    I hope they put him in that jail cell – and there is a bunch of dad’s in there who know exactly what he was planning!

    He is such a worm – trying to blame his wife – saying he had changed his mind at the last minute! YEAH RIGHT!! How ridiculous if anyone believes those lies!!

    I just have to wonder – how many tines did he do this before – and not get caught?? I seriously doubt this was his first time!

    Someone else wrote about his work ethics aboard the Lincoln – I’ve heard similiar stories – including one that made me so angry! He has no heart for his men – and I hope and pray the judge will not have any compassion for him when he sentences him!

    In addition – and I realize his wife will have to pay the price – but he should not be allowed to retire – period!

    My husband retired from the Navy – and he is a GREAT man!! He should not be in the same class of men as this animal! Sorry!

    Maybe more people should start planning their retirements younger – and not depend on their company – regardless if it’s the Government!

    I have heard of so many people who have worked all their lives – only to find out when it was almost time to retire – Oops – sorry not retirement any more.

    But then again – that’s a whole different topic!

    I just really hope they give Scott the logest possible sentence! We do not want any sick person living in Kitsap County!

  22. anonymous Says:

    SCPO Retired,
    He was using a Navy computer to plan his dirty deed. He SHOULD have to go to Court Martial. No, the family shouldn’t have to pay the same price…THEY should be given his retirement so they can heal and get on with their lives WITHOUT him…however, the Navy not punishing him would be an injustice to those who have been punished and kicked out for committing lesser crimes before him. (And trust me, I have seen my share of those who were kicked out for less.) It would be considered a double standard and teach everyone that they can get away with murder. Unfortunately, crimes committed by sickos like this one not only affect the victim, but they affect the family of the perpetrator. It’s a part of life. If the Navy feels that his family deserves better, then they should find a way to help the family without also rewarding the criminal in the process. He SHOULD be given a dishonorable discharge…

    Sharon, I once saw a guy who got arrested for beating his wife and a couple months later he was promoted to chief…they didn’t even make the guy go to anger management classes (something that is avaialble at Family Advocacy)…what does THAT tell you? It pays to be a part of the good old boy’s club.

    He was a surface sailor. I wonder how many poor little girl prostitutes in the Philippines and Asia (where it is legal) he solicited. I have been told (by retired chiefs) that guys do it all of the time when they go overseas. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if he did also.

  23. Wife of CPO Says:

    I am so amazed at what some people have written – sorry – but it shocks me!

    Someone wrote:

    “Not everything is as simple as the media would like us to think. These internet stings are catching people who have done nothing but fantasize and have “dirty” thoughts.”

    YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING! Thank God – and yes – I mean that without any reservations – thank God there are internet stings out there! Otherwise – there would be freaks like Scott actually getting his hands on some child! Maybe not this one – but he wouldn’t stop until he did – and lord only knows how many Kids he has been with!.

    Same person wrote:

    “As someone else said above, we are urging 7 plus years of prison time for a person who is only guilty of thinking of committing a crime. Pretty strong punishment for a crime without a victim.”

    No – he wasn’t just thinking about it – that is of course what he told the police when they put the hand cuffs on him! He showed up at that hotel in full belief he was about to enter a room and have sex with two kids and their mother!

    Not to mention – the crime here is the internet chatting with a minor!!! He is being charged with that!!

    I am so relieved that he is off “our” streets! One more freak we won’t have to worry about our children coming into contact with – and I hope for at least 90 months!

    It amazes me the liberal mind set of people when it comes to our Children!! Hello!!! We are talking about innocent children here!

    I am so shocked to think that some of you believe this man! That is the entire reason he is able to get away with what he has – and yes – I’m sure that he has gotten away with plenty that he shouldn’t have!!

  24. navy retired2 Says:

    George, i really don’t understand your thought process (entrapment) this man was caught right before he was to commit this crime with 12 year old kids, if it were not for the law enforcement intervention i have no doubt he would have hurt those children. and by you defending him with the evidence being what it is i wonder how much integrity you have. this man was a very senior person in the navy and he knew better, he has dealt with similar issues in his career and sent some of those people down the road via the military justice system, so you think he is above the law? i think not. as a senior enlisted sailor he should be held to the same laws that govern the same crime if he was an e-1. As a proud member of the navy i have all the faith the navy will do the right thing when the time comes. So George if you condone this thing by stating it is entrapment, i say people like you thinking the way you do is bringing the morals of society down! I believe we as citizens have a duty to protect our children for they are the future and they deserve the best we can give them, and again my covers off to law enforcement for the good work they are doing for us. And last but not least there has not been a day that i have not thought of his family, i hope they get through this and live a happy life.

    navy retired2

  25. anonymous Says:

    You go Navy retired2!

    Dirty thoughts and fantasies like these are NOT NORMAL behavior. Many people seek out to fulfil their fantasies if they can…pedaphiles will in a heartbeat…mainly because they like being the ones in control of the situation. It gives them power.

    Scott is not innocent, if he were, he would fight this to the death. He wants the easy plea deal, quick way out.

  26. Retired ITC Says:

    Having served with Ed Scott in the mid 90′s his attraction for internet chatting (during normal working hours) existed then and to find out that he has continued through the years, it was only a matter of time this would come to the surface in the manner that it did. I feel sorry for his wife and son, the shame, humiliation that he has caused them is terrible.
    Would he have gone through with it? I’m sure he would have or he would never have shown up at the Hotel, regardless if it were a sting or not!

    I do believe that as a Command Master Chief, he should not be sparred the punishment through the civil or the Navy court martial system. It’s just so unfortunate for his family.

  27. active navy Says:

    Ummm…I can’t believe that people are actually thinking about his family when it comes to military benifits? Yes its hard not to consider the family BUT a crime in the military like this is a no-brainer BCD, no retirement. Regardless of rank. So let me post this for you all to think about.
    Who else knew that he had a fetish like this?
    In the Surface Navy we know what our shipmates do on liberty time away from home..which means I am sure some people knew that he had isues but never had the guts to stand up for what is right. I am ashamed that the CPO community has not stood up. Has it been mentioned at quarters? Sure for about 2 minutes.
    If i was to get caught smoking dope…I would be out of the Navy in about 2 months. He plead guilty which means he is guilty. So its time for the Navy to stand up and do what is right. Also if he was using goverment networks for these chats..what about the computer techs securing the networks? If i tried to read my yahoo account i will get my account taken away..and He is in chat rooms?? When the Navy decides to treat a E-9 by the rules like they treat E-6 and below then things like this could have been caught a lot earlier. If he was using chat rooms years ago on goverment networks then he should no way be in charge of anyone. As a active duty father of 3 in the Navy I am ashamed of him, but i am more ashamed of the people that knew he had a problem (including the network guys) and turned the blind eye. A child could have been hurt and might have been hurt if he did it before. Shame on the Navy as a whole for letting this guy use thier networks for this purpose. Shame on his shipmates that knew he was breaking the rules, using goverment networks for personal/criminal uses.
    I feel for the family cause they have “served” thier country but they have not served in the Navy and therefore should not be entitled to any benifits.

  28. An old friend Says:

    Let me start with how horrible I feel for Mrs. Scott and her son. She has a good bit to lose here, and probably already has. If nothing else, I do not know how she ever trust anyone again. Divorce proceedings would be underway if it was my husband.
    But what I particularly want to bring up is this SSOSA thing that is why this scumbag pleaded guilty. It is a PLEA BARGAIN, and will let him off the hook. In one of these blogs it has been said that there is a website where concerned people can voice their opinion…PLEASE POST THAT quickly.
    This loser needs to lose ALL RETIREMENT BENEFITS, spend several years in prison, and have NOTHING left after it all done and said. For the pain that he is causing his family, and the SHAME that he has brougth upon the Navy, he deserves NOTHING.

  29. CMC Spouse Says:

    CPO(ret)…Ed Scott is not UA and hasn’t been (though I personally think he should be). Since he’s been in jail (where he belongs)he has been eating up his leave. His wife should have been able to buy back his leave. Sad but sooo true, FEDERAL EMPLOYEE, spelled it all out. His wife will get nothing, but maybe a thank you and a good luck. The Navy didn’t supply Ed with a wife when he joined. On the flip side of the coin, had Ed been the MCPON or on the wardroom side as an ADM+ there the Navy does require that the servicemember be married. I doubt the Navy would continue to support the spouse even then, but just maybe the spouse would have a leg to stand on.
    I continue to wish the rest of the family my heart and prayers through this difficult time.

  30. Harvey Fleck MMCM(SS)Retired Says:

    His kind is one of the reasons I retired. The plead deal is set. Kitsap County and the Navy wants this to go away.
    He should lose all his benefits.
    I think this guy is connected to the Capt that took his own life at the base a few weeks ago.

  31. David Feist Says:

    I am retired from the navy, I used to work in federal prison, and now I work in a large county jail. I have seen people come in to jail and prison that I knew or was acquainted with in the navy. In two cases they were child molesters, in one case he was a murderer. That master chief is an absolute disgrace to the navy. He should be locked up for life. When he gets out of state prison, the navy should court-martial him and lock him up again for as long as possible, reduced to E-1 and given a dishonorable discharge, that is, if they ever let him out of prison.

  32. anonymous Says:

    You are so right active Navy…on EVERY point.

  33. CMC Spouse Says:

    RETIRED Fleck,
    How dare you mention Captain Perkins and Ed Scott in the same sentence. There was ZERO connection and you are not much better then Ed Scott for even thinking it. You are a disgrace to the submarine community, goat locker, and all master chiefs.

  34. Sharon O'Hara Says:

    EVERY successful professional person has people backing her/him up.

    The fact is, in my opinion…the spouse..wife in this case… helped empower the chief to succeed and deserves a ‘retirement’…
    They were a team. It is not right that any spouse married long term to a career military person is deprived of income through the wrong doing of their military family member.

    If the military wants quality people, they need to look at compensation and benefits for the spouse as well as the individual who actually signed the papers for military service.

    The spouse, usually a woman, needs to feel valued…why wouldn’t the military lead the way to a new regiment of military service…to embrace the spouse as part of the package…not continue to see her/him as an appendage.

    Military wives will be looking closely at the Navy’s treatment of this case.

    The chief cannot be punished enough for his crime against children .
    His wife and children .do not deserve to be put out with nothing.

    And yes, woman are resilient survivors …many if not most, will rise from the ashes and go on to make their new lives one of fulfillment and satisfaction.
    Sharon O’Hara

  35. Jim C. Says:

    CMC Spouse:

    “On the flip side of the coin, had Ed been the MCPON or on the wardroom side as an ADM+ there the Navy does require that the servicemember be married.”

    Where is that regulation stated? I couldn’t find it in the U.S. Navy Regulations and it wasn’t in the last NAVADMIN for MCPON. I never had a Fitness report that included maritial information.

    I have feeling that is just an old wives’ tale.

    As for Scott, hopefully the Navy makes an example out of him and takes everything from him. Hopefully he will learn the meaning of real love in prison!

    It is unfortunate about his family, they are also victims of his stupidity and will pay the biggest price. However, this happens to other Sailor’s families on a routine basis with little or no publicity and life moves on. I am not saying it is right or wrong, it is just the way it is.

  36. CMC Spouse Says:

    Jim C.
    My husband will look it up on Monday and I’ll let you know, OK? The MCPON’s wife and all the other possible MCPONs that put in their packages for MCPON received a message that stated that: the servicemember had to be married with a spouse that was willing to be the Navy’s OMB and in addition to be willing to represent the spouses of the Navy. Each spouse was interview by the CNO and the outgoing MCPON. How many MCPON’s do you remember that weren’t married?

  37. navy retired2 Says:

    cmc spouse, i can relate to what you say but here is an example, after retirement i declined sbp because of the high cost and little return, so if i pass away my spouse gets zero and that’s after an honorable career,and my spouse did the whole time with me, so with that said why should the navy let Scott get any type of benefits after what he did, i do feel strongly for his family but in most jobs, it is the employee that gets compensated not the spouse. i feel some things can be worked out but his crime is not one of those things. so don’t get mad at the navy get mad at Scott. the best advice i could give is not to spend a penny on Scott and get moving on with her life without him and get control of all available assets because he wont need them where he should be going.And one last point i would like to address this type of conduct that was said to be the norm for deploying sailors by certain posts, after a long career i have not witnessed or would have tolerated any type of conduct like was stated and any of my fellow chiefs who not of either, i think the people that posted those statements were either involved or failed to report it which makes them just as responsible,i have served with some very oustanding people, with that said i am not nieve and know that there are some bad people out there in and out of the service but i will stand my ground and say 99.9% are good people.

    navy retired2

  38. CMC Spouse Says:

    Kudos Navy retired2. I only wish there was something that the Navy could do/give Mrs. Scott. She has been by Ed’s side for a very long period just like many of us have been by our spouse’s side. Ed Scott deserves NOTHING. He blew that away as soon as he entered that chatroom. I personally hope he gets the max and looks at his dishonable discharge papers every day as they hang in his cell. We as spouse’s know and appreciate the long, seven days a week work that you do while deployed. 90% of all the commands my husband has been with were good people…both sub and surface. There’s always one in the bunch that gives the Command and the Navy a bad name. Ed Scott has given the whole Navy a black eye and his wife is paying for it in more ways then one.
    My father and husband would have been honored to have worked besided you.

  39. Jim C. Says:

    CMC Spouse:

    Thanks for giving your husband that lookup. I am just curious.

    I know that the MCPON’s wife was designated as the Ombudsman-at-large for the Navy in 1988. I was stationed in the Philippines at that time and Plackett came to visit us and his wife attended my future wife’s “bride school” class that was given by the Navy. I always thought that class should be a requirement for all prospective wives, not just foreign nationals.

    Anyway, if it is true, it seems like the Navy would be short changing itself as far as the pool of qualified candidates who are single.

    Concerning spouse entitlements, remember that other professions such as police officers, firemen, etc. have the same stressors, if not more, in thier jobs. If they are fired, thier spouses are not entitled to anything, it’s just over.

    We have to remember, that as members/former members of the military, we are/were public servants and serve at the pleasure of the taxpayer. The taxpayer pays the member to perform a certain job and live within the boundaries provided, not the spouse or children.

    If this military member were female and married, would there be the same concern for her husband? I doubt it.

  40. RETIRED NAVY Says:

    This is for CL and Wife of a CPO. He was chatting with someone he thought was a mother and a child. (sick thoughts at that) I’m chatting with you now, I don’t know who you are, how old you are, if your initials are really cl or a wife of a CPO. (nor do I care) He is charged with attempted rape of a child, not sure how that can happen when chatting. His thoughts are criminal, however his actions are immoral, unethical, and down right nasty—but not a crime. Anyway, the plea deal will most likely get him a very leniant sentence.

  41. Federal employee Says:

    Sharon: Apparently, you don’t have any connection to or knowledge of the military. Rules regarding service and retirement are for the active duty member, not the family member/s. Same as on the “outside” – retirement benefits are for the employees, not their families. This is whether or not the spouse, as you put it, empowered the person to succeed. Entitlement to retirement can be awarded in divorce court; each state treats this differently. Jim C., you are so right. In 25 years of working at a Navy base in Rhode Island, I’ve seen lower rated persons discharged in a heartbeat for much less serious offenses. I have also seen E7s and above and officers given a slap on the wrist for offenses punishable in a civilian court and worthy of a bad conduct discharge. Unfortunately, the expression, “The Navy takes care of its own,” is randomly applied, all too often to the detriment of good order. Scott most certainly planned on going through with his sick plan; why else would he have shown up with condoms in his pocket? Again, he should have thought about how any and all of his actions would affect his family.

  42. Rv, USMC (former) Says:

    Those who are in positions of public trust (politicians, law enforcement officer, military SNCOs and officers, etc.), should be help to a higher standard, not given leniency because of their position. This “man” should do the maximum amount of time in prison allowed under the law, without parole.

    As to a courts martial, this would have a large impact on his family, who are also innocent victims and would lose those benefits they deserve should he be given a BCD.

    Having him serve 6 1/2 years in prison, NO parole, and having to register as a sex offender for the remainder of his life with a reduction in rate with a general discharge would be enough.

  43. CMC Spouse Says:

    RETIRED Navy,
    Though not addressed to me, I have got to say something, are you off your rocker? Which part of Ed Scott’s actions was not a crime? When he walked into a hotel with the intent (and condoms in his pockets)to have sex with a “mother” and to engage in sexual activity with her 12 year-old children? Maybe you missed a big part of this: Ed Scott pleaded GUILTY to attempted rape of a child. He is still,and since the day he was arrested, sitting in jail (where he belongs and hopefully sits for a very long time). As soon as he signed in under his screen name of fetish12 he had already crossed the line of “immoral thoughts”….not to mention that it is a crime in the Navy to access such sites. I can only hope that the Judge does sentence him to the 5.5 years in prison. After that I wish the Navy would then charge him with all the other “crimes” he commited and sits in the Navy’s big house for several more years….

    Immoral….you have got to be kidding!!!

  44. retired navy2 Says:

    navy retired i cant believe what you said, there was INTENT beyond reasonable doubt. If it had not been a law enforcement sting he would have done his dirty deed then continued on to work. Here is an idea,how about him taking a lie detector test just to see if this is really his first time being involved, even though it is not admissible it would be great for data collection. When is the sentencing anyhow i missed that?

    navy retired2

    nay retired2: The sentencing is set for early May.

  45. Retired Navy Says:

    CMC Spouse: I don’t like Ed and think he is a scum ball. However, I’m simply stating he had intent which is not a crime. Many people are blogging Ed on his reputation and past doings. I simply believe he is guilty of soliciting a minor for sex (which is a serious crime and he should be punished). Don’t fool yourself he plead guilty for a reason. Remember he always had hook ups. It is punishable under the UCMJ and or local policy to access such sites as he was on, however he probably doesn’t even have a AIS user agreement on file with the Navy or NMCI which would mean he is not aware of that policy. (so he would say)
    Navy retired2 what happens if he passes the lie detector test and has never even touched a child in a perverted manner? Not sure on the sentencing. Rest assured there is a lot of under table handshaking taking place right now.

  46. Sharon O'Hara Says:

    Federal employee…

    I believe the rules of today will not be the rules tomorrow…either in a progressive organization or the military.

    “…..Sharon: … Rules regarding service and retirement are for the active duty member, not the family member/s. Same as on the “outside” – retirement benefits are for the employees, not their families. This is whether or not the spouse, as you put it, empowered the person to succeed….”

    That this man’s wife will walk away with nothing points up the real need for change.

    Women can vote these one time we weren’t allowed to vote.
    Women have rights…many are still working on the courage to dare insist on those rights.
    Sharon O’Hara

  47. Syd Nunez Says:

    I believe any crime against children, properly proven, should carry the maximum sentence possible. Whether or not he is given treatment, should have no bearing on his sentence, and neither should the fact that he has a family. Criminals shouldn’t get consideration for having a family, or more criminals would get one. If crime ceases to have tangible consequences, crime will continue. I feel for his family, and wish there was a way for them to get their due of his retirement without him getting any. This isn’t possible right now. This is an issue for the future. I am glad there are people willing to put themselves in danger to stop people from hurting our children!! Put the blame and the punishment where it belongs, and fix the system so there are less outs for the criminals.

  48. CMC Spouse Says:

    All (from the CO down) service members sign the AIS statement each command they report to. If this is overlooked during check-in, the ITs aren’t doing their jobs (no disrespect to any IT) There’s no way Ed Scott, after 25 yrs in the Navy did not know about the Navy’s policy…especially as a CMC. His “intent” is a crime and we all can thank God every day that we have the wonderful task force that saved another child(ren) from being harmed by a sick individual like Ed. I agree with you totally that he pleaded guilty to lessen the punishment. We can only hope that the Navy did have something to do with that. We can hope that the Navy will step up to the plate and add the additional charges when the time is right.
    (What’s NMCI?)
    Sharon: I can read your frustration and I agree, but the Navy and the outside world as “Federal” explained, is not going to support the wife once Ed receives his walking papers. (Ed’s wife), myself, my mother,and all the military spouses did not sign up for the service. With that said we get nothing if our spouse is kicked out of the service. My brother is a senior engineer and has worked for the same company since he graduate college. That will be 20 years this May. He and my sister-in-law have been married 17 of those years. If he is fired for any reason, she most certainly isn’t going to continue to receive his paycheck and/or retirement pay. Ed Scott blew his retirement, benefits, & family right out the window.

  49. Elaine Wolcott-Ehrhardt Says:

    Well this guy I hope never sees the streets in peace again. As for the benefits for his wife If I were her I would get a job and make it on her own, I do not think she should be entitled to any more benefits than a wife of a laid off Boeing employee. If you are enlisted in any kind of job you are the one enlisted not your spouse. The military does provide benefits just like many corporations for the family. They end with termination of employment.

  50. A Sailor Says:

    If you change the rules for one person, you are going to open a Pandora’s box. This E9 (better be an E1 when he gets his Big Chicken Dinner) knew the rules, broke the rules and now has to paid the piper. I hope people who read this forum take the time to contact the Commanding Officer of Naval Base Kitsap and let it be known you will accept nothing less than a Reduction in Rate to E1 loss of all pay and allowances and the BCD. You will most likely get the comment, the Navy does not comment on this or that, but this time, they might just have too.

  51. fed up Says:

    I am a United States Sailor.
    I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me.
    I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world.
    I proudly serve my country’s Navy combat team with Honor, Courage and Commitment.
    I am committed to excellence and the fair treatment of all.

    That was the sailor’s creed. Something which all sailors have had to recite since boot camp. We do not sign it, however it is something we are told by our superiors that we must live up to. The fact that he was one of the, for the lack of a better term, men telling us to recite it on a regular basis implies that he would know it by now.

    As for his guilt with the UCMJ I can think of Articles: 80-attempts, 92-Failure to obey order or regulation, 134-2-adultery, 134-27-indecent acts with another, just to name a few.

    While I do feel some sympathy for his family, as the law stands they don’t deserve anything. It has been mentioned that the wife is the motivational force behind many great men. Where are the tears for those wives who got nothing when their husbands didn’t do anything wrong. His wife has served her husband well. What Ed Scott did was unforgivable and he should be dealt with accordingly. What did his wife do to prevent it? If she is to take the accolades when he does good, she can deal with the fallout from his transgressions. However this is only my opinion.

  52. CMC Spouse Says:

    FED UP:
    “What did his wife do to prevent it?” How on God’s green earth is this any of her fault? How can you even think such a horrible thought? Oh wait, Ed mentioned right after he was arrested that he blamed (his wife) because they were having marital problems. No matter what goes on behind closed doors can that push a spouse into the sick-minded actions that Ed tried to fulfill. How can a spouse prevent this? There’s no way! Ed is 43 years old and not a child that needs to be supervised 24/7. Hey FED UP lets also blame his parents, society, and/or the Navy. My husband and I “PREVENT” our child from entering sites on the internet, but we don’t “PREVENT” each other. We’re adults and we make our decisions. It’s sad and actually scary that you and Ed feel that it’s someone else’s fault and can’t step up and take responsibility for your own actions.

  53. RETIRED NAVY Says:

    CMC spouse: Navy Marine Corps Intranet (the civilian folks running all IT services for the Navy and Marine Corps) When this goes to court martial it will all be based on facts/evidence (not a CO’s mast) and what crime Ed committed to get thrown in jail(believe me if paperwork is not in order – AIS agreement on file, he will not be held accountable). His buddies will show up and and tell the members of the court martial how Ed was a stand up guy until this incident- for 20+ years. Many Puget Sound active duty and family members, including myself will be disappointed with the outcome of his court martial (leniency) primarily because of the freakish nature of this whole episode by one selfish person trying to exploit children and on Navy time.

  54. Fed Up Says:

    CMC Spouse
    I never said that what happened was the wife’s fault. I believe that what Ed did was his fault. I have taken responsibility for all of my actions throughout my career. I am just trying to say that his wife has not done anything to earn a retirement. I don’t hear anyone crying over the wives of those sailors who ate their way out of the navy or got kicked out over drugs. As far as it goes I do not blame her for her husband’s actions. However with that said I can’t give her credit for his successes either. I never blame my wife for my screw ups and she never takes credit for when I do good at work. We keep the 2 worlds separate. I believe that it is a tragedy what happened and that Ed Scott should be punished to the fullest extent of the law both military and civil. However I don’t see how compensating the wife for a bad choice in husbands would be fair to the rest of the wives out there who suffer for the choices their criminal husbands make. Isn’t that why marriage is a partnership? Lord knows my wife has to deal with my choices and no one cries for her. Of course I choose to live in the bounds of the law.

  55. SCPO (ret) Says:


    While your points about the possible punishment from the Navy may be correct and warranted and your statement about the Navy Creed is commendable, I will state the following.

    If you are of the male gender and had you made that statement about his wife not doing anything to prevent it in my physical presence, I would have knocked you on your (butt)! His wife has NEVER taken credit for the good things he did or accomplished in his career. And to in some way imply that she knew this would happen and could have prevented this is absolutely ludicrous. As a sailor, I have always believed that our spouses deserved every bit of credit for the good things we did during our service because without our spouse’s support we would never have accomplished what we did. As for our mistakes and missteps, however grave, it is our decision and ours alone. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

    As for her not “deserving anything” The words should be “not entitled”. She “deserves” to get anything he gets because of his actions and he would probably give that up freely. Whether he gets anything but a BCD at whatever level is not up to you and or anyone on this board. It is ultimately up to the Navy.

    Bottom line is what Ed did, or THOUGHT about doing, as unthinkable as it was, it was his decision and his alone and he will live with the consequences of those actions. Unfortunately so will his family. This incident has taught me one thing, we all think this will never happen to some one we know or even a family member. Until it does. It puts this entire topic into a whole new and unsettling perspective.

    And one final thought, I have known this family for a very long time and I assure you that he is in no way trying to “get out” of anything. He will accept his punishment and get help. As for the family they have a huge support group of friends and family to help them.

  56. an old friend Says:

    I have been retired for some time now, so please bear with these questions.
    Scott has been in the Kitsap County Jail for awhile now with an additional amount of time left to go. Has he been put on Administrative Leave and if so,when will he stop being paid while on Administrative Leave? He should be well over 1/2 way through any Leave time that he had accrued. Once that Leave time is gone, then he should go into a Unauthorized Absence status? And at that point, will he no longer be paid? Is that correct?
    When and how will the Navy take their judicial action, and what action will that be? I pray that this be a the strongest Court Martial, and that it happens QUICKLY! At minimum, Reduction to E1, and a BCD. Whatever it takes so that he is NEVER entitled to receive the tax dollars that I pay in the form of Retirement pay.
    Did this Guilty Plea make it so that he can keep his retirement? For those of us that have Retired HONORABLY, how can we be sure that this scumbag won’t walk away with just a slap on the wrist? 90 Months in a Treatment program is a JOKE, and an insult to the community in which he lives.
    SCPO Ret, I don’t think that Ed will EVER own up to just how unforgivable his actions have been. The Plea Deal is evidence of that. And one last question, has his wife left him yet? If not, WHY? I would only pray that his wife divorces him and takes the house, the boat, the Rv, the vehicles, along with anything else and leaves him feeling as empty as I am sure she is feeling right now. Staying with him would be her greatest mistake!

  57. 1LT Says:

    This whole issue is being blow out of control, at least compared to other cases in the State of Washington under similar circumstances. Recently, even in King County, a county official pleaded guilty and received far less that Ed Scott is facing. Why should Ed be treated differently than a county official?

    Research on the subject has been proven over and over again that sending sexual offenders to prison is not the solution, they need counseling. This reduces the rearrest rate to 7%. The current rearrest rate for sexual offenders is 17%, which is below the rate for other criminals. Ed Scott will be a productive member of society once again, and I want him to succeed.

    Send him away for 90 months? You are kidding yourselves if you really believe this is the right punishment for his crime!

    Some of you talk about tax payer money, what do you think you would be doing if he went to prison? Yes, your tax money does support prison. Under SOSSA, the cost is 1/5 the amount it would be to send him away. AND he is required to pay for the counseling and other costs while in the program. Based on research, this is the right course of action.

    Ed is not the villain many are trying to portray, he made a poor choice and he is paying the price. You all talk about the plea deal as if you were a part of the discussions. Ed pleaded guilty not out of any deal, but because he had no chance at a fair trial. You all are ready to send him away based on inaccurate reporting. Even this paper has made mistakes, first they reported he had 3 boxes of condoms, and then it was 3 condoms. This paper also reports the children were a male and female, but according to court records, this is not the case, either the paper or Bremerton Police can not get things straight. And there are no conversations about the sting or the entrapment by the police. You have no idea what happened in those emails/online chat, yet you want to send him away for 90 months. I am sure any ethical dilemma you face also warrants a 90 month sentence if you make the wrong choice.

    To an ‘old friend’ your comments do not sound as if you are an old friend as you call yourself. If you were a friend, you would stand by the 24+ years of outstanding service Ed Scott completed. You would know how Ed Scott has helped his fellow service members, even when he had nothing to gain. And your comment on his wife, her decision to stay or leave is her decision, not yours. You say staying with him would be her biggest mistake? I think her biggest mistake would be calling you a friend! Maybe you should look at yourself and see what it means to be an ‘old friend.’

    I for one continue to call myself a friend of Ed Scott, and his wife. While I do not agree with his choice, I will stand by him and ask that he gets all the help he needs.

  58. anonymous Says:

    SCPO RET.,
    OF COURSE Ed has taken full responsibility. He has no choice. If this hadn’t been a sting, he would have followed through with his indecency and would have continued with it probably until he got caught. He took the easy way out. He is going to counseling because he HAS to as part of his plea deal.

    Why did he wait until NOW to plead guilty? He had that chance when he first went to court! Now he has a deal to get him less time in the joint.

    Bottom line here is, he hasn’t taken any responsibility here…he is only sorry because he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

    If that had been YOUR child he solicited, I don’t think Scott would be alive today.
    But since it was a sting he got himself into, he is “owning up” to his poor judgment and actions.

  59. SCPO (Ret) Says:

    For an old friend,

    He admitted guilt. It is up to the judge whether he goes to treatment in lieu of the maximum jail time all of which will be based on many factors.

    As for you question of his wife’s intentions. If you are an old friend as your moniker indicates then you should know the answer, if you are not then it is none of your business.

  60. Elaine Wolcott-Ehrhardt Says:

    Again as a taxpayer. If you are termimated so are your families bennifits!

  61. An old friend Says:

    To 1LT, I don’t care if there is 25,30,50, or 100 years of what you call Outstanding Service here, discussing ANY sexual acts with children negates anything good of that service. He was in a position of Authority and Trust. He abused his position, his authority, and ALL trust that his fellow sailors have for him. If you want to call that Outstanding Service, I don’t want to know what you would call Average. Perhaps a reminder that our children are our future…why would anyone support someone who wants to harm the children? Having sex with children is EVIL, IMMORAL, and destroys any friendship that existed. Enought said to you on this subject.

    To SCPO, Ret, maybe you are in the inner circle and know more than the public does. Maybe you don’t. I can only tell you how I feel. I am shocked that Ed has gotten himself into this nightmare. It has taken me some time to get past the horror and shock of this and now I am mad.
    I am mad as a hornet that he has put his wife into this bizarre scenario. I am mad at how this will affect his son, and his son’s family. Friends get mad at friends, and are also allowed to have opinions!

  62. CMC Spouse Says:

    I hope you didn’t expect your comment to be ignored.
    A) Ed Scott pleaded guilty because he wouldn’t receive a fair trial? I guess he shouldn’t have been at that hotel with the sole intent to follow through with his plan. He was also probably told that if there was a jury trial, society would have thrown the book at him. If this was simply a bad choice in judgment on his part, he wouldn’t have taken the deal, pleaded not guilty, and proved his case at trial.
    B) 3 boxes of condoms vs 3 condoms? It could have been a truck load, he still had condoms in his pocket and for one reason and one reason only.
    C) How many of the court hearings have you attended that the 12 yr old male & female were not mentioned? Both females or both males…they were still supposed 12 year olds. Children.
    D) Entrapment? Gee haven’t heard his defense attorney argue that one. I guess when he walked into the hotel there must have been a passenger in his car with a gun forcing him into the “entrapment” Nevertheless when he was communicating with the undercover cop online setting up the rendezvous.
    E) Ethical dilemma? This was not a thought “I have been drinking. Can I still drive?” (Mind you that is still very wrong) Ed planned, plotted, and tried to execute an unforgivable act. An act that “could” have involved real children. What if those children had been one of his grand children? Would you still stand by his side? What if, God forbid, it wasn’t a sting and he had gone through with his plan?
    Since you claim he made a “bad choice” and the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, why haven’t you bailed your friend out? Why hasn’t anyone?
    LT, I’m sure you mean well, but come on!

  63. 1LT Says:

    To An old friend: He did not “discuss ANY sexual acts with children” as you claim. But since you are such an old friend maybe you already knew that and overlooked it in your anger. Besides, you do not know what went on in those emails, oh I forgot you are an old friend so you have all the details.

    You fail to mention the ‘mother’ in the sting or the entrapment that went on. You only see what is printed in the papers, which has been wrong on several fronts. You see things so black and white, but life never is so simple.

    Ed did have outstanding service, which is why he made it to the position he did. And SCPO RET is correct, it is up to the judge now. Turning my back on him would be wrong, especially when he needs friend more than ever.

    And we all have opinions, just some stink more than others!

    By the way, Ed did not have sex with a child, nor has he pleaded to it.

  64. A Sailor Says:

    I am disgusted by the fact that people out there are still trying to defend this guy.

    As an E9 in a leadership position, I am fairly certain he was witness to many a junior sailor being shown the door for breaking the rules and losing everything.

    Get him out of my Navy. He is an embarrassment to those of us who serve with honor and follow the rules.

  65. navy retired2 Says:

    1lt i can not agree more with an old friend. I have to chuckle when i read your comments ” he is not a villain he made a poor choice” , by your standards i suggest you might need to look in the mirror and re-calibrate yourself, i am just astounded that a few people that post here look at the crime as minor!! the only thing i can commend Scott on is that he was man enough to fess up to the crime, which i am sure his lawyer told him to do anyhow being he did not have a leg to stand on. So 1lt you stand by him if you please but after reading your remarks i wonder about your integrity. There comes a time where you must do the right thing no matter who your friends are especially when it comes protection of our children.

    navy retired2

  66. Kris Says:

    I could not disagree with you more about your blanket statement in regards to the reason Scott made E-9. I have seen many an undeserving man get placed into positions that they should NEVER be put into. It would appear by the comments of many others in the original blog that this was the case with Ed Scott.

    I have met the guy on a couple of occasions and to tell you the truth, I did not like his cocky attitude. He truly thought he was untouchable.

    I agree with old friend. It’s sickening how people are still defending him based on the fact that it was a sting and not real children involved.

    This case has done more damage than you will ever imagine. A chief that I know who had NOTHING to do with Scott had his adoption halted because of Scott’s actions…I believe the reasons that were given were…because “of the press that chiefs are getting lately”.

    Bottom line 1LT is, his INTENT (which was criminal) was there…that’s all the proof that I need.

    Navy Retired2…Bravo! BraaaaaaaaVO!

  67. an old friend Says:

    For anyone who is standing by Ed Scott, I would like you think about a few things.
    1. Hypothetically, what if he was discussing having sex with your child, brother, sister, or whoever under the legal age. How would you feel knowing that a 42 year old man was fantasizing about having sex, kissing, or whatever, with your family member? I bet you wouldn’t be real thrilled with the idea, and I also bet that you folks would not stand by him. So why are you standing by him now?
    2. Some of you are calling this entrapment. Where does that come from? If you didn’t know Scott, and it was some anonymous person, would you still be calling it entrapment? Probably not.
    3. Would you be willing to leave your 12 year old with him to “babysit” while you went out and ran errands? If you answer yes, then chances are you’re lying!
    1LT, you can stand by him and be his friend, but it will NEVER make what he did right. If you can remain friends with someone who is immoral, unethical, and untrustworthy, then perhaps we need to question your integrity.

  68. CMC Spouse Says:

    An Old Friend,
    Quite a few people, including myself, have asked the same questions – mostly directed to 1LT. As you can see s/he hasn’t replied to certain comments.
    Hopefully 21 May, justice will be served when Ed is sentenced.

  69. booboo Says:

    I love it when no one responds to my comments about the things that go on in other countries that allow child prostitution.
    Only confirms what I already know…and it sickens me.

  70. Michele Says:

    Booboo–I do not see where you made a comment in this section of the blog, so how can someone respond if there is nothing from you listed under this heading? Furthermore, to say it confirms what you already know is nebulous.

  71. Booboo Says:

    What I meant to say was, “I love it when no one responds to THE comments about…” honest mistake considering I HAVE made the same comments in past blogs. My fault for not double checking my writing.

    The fact that someone else did mention it though, only confirms my suspicions even more. “Nebulous”? Misty…unclear? I have spoken with surface sailors and submarine sailors. They have told me the same thing. Some chiefs and some higher…and some jr. enlisted.(Male AND female) Are they ALL liars? I don’t think so.

    While I cannot “prove” it myself, why would they tell me this if it weren’t true?

    By the way, I have been associated with the Navy for over 20 years…so, with all due respect Michele, it’s your opinion that is “nebulous,” not mine.

  72. Kris Says:

    I am sorry, but I have to say it, but, I have to defend Booboo on this one…I have heard the same thing…only from my husband(who served for 20+ years) and many of his friends. It is a sad truth, but, there it is. Keep in mind though that it’s a societal problem…not just a Navy problem.

  73. Michele Parkins Says:

    Booboo, I was simply trying to understand what you were saying. Furthermore, you stated “Only confirms what I already know…and it sickens me.” and this is what I found nebulous. You did not state what you already know. So I find this imprecise and hazy.

    Before attacking me, perhaps being more clear in your thoughts would help. I am simply trying to understand what you are saying. More precisely, I have not stated an opinion, so how can my opinion be nebulous? I am simply trying to understand.

    However, that said I agree fully that what happens in other countries with children is horrific.

  74. Booboo Says:

    I stand corrected. I will clarify…What I was referring to was the solicitation of child prostitutes in countries such as the Philippines and other Asian countries…I have been told that many of our sailors, jr. enlisted, chiefs and officers alike, solicit child prostitution when they are deployed. While it is legal in other countries, I do not believe it is legal as far as the code of military justice is concerned and if they were caught, they might possibly get “reprimanded” for it. but, from what I have been told, it’s pretty common practice. Let’s just say, they turn their heads on it.

  75. navyretired2 Says:

    I have seen booboos postings in the past and i regard him or her a person that stereotypes people and tries to bash the navy, maybe he got kicked out? I challenge booboo to get the stats on child predators and you will find out that most are civilians in the states and over seas and that the military does not tolerate such behavior, so booboo go tell your tales to someone that might believe you and when you do speak get the stats and fill us in. I find you to be such a negative person.


  76. Michele Parkins Says:


    Thank you for clarifying your views. I have heard of this happening and find this appalling. I would speak more on this subject, but I don’t feel I have enough knowledge or facts to voice my opinion accurately.

  77. Jim C. Says:


    I am not sure what you saw when you were there, but I will give you my view to see if it helps.

    A little background: I lived in the Philippines from 1986-1989 and served as a Military Policeman there. At that time based on historical ties, local customs and treaties, we had significant jurisdiction of U.S. military personnel and limited jurisdiction over U.S. civilians both on-base and off-base. That said, we pretty much saw it all from murder to petty theft and everything in between. We also had a very good relationship with local law enforcement, para-military and military officials.

    First of all, prostitution (both adult and child) is illegal in the Philippines as well as most other Asian countries. I do believe adult prostitution is legal in Singapore, but don’t take my word on that. In the Philippines, if a member was arrested by local police for solicitation, they would turn the member over to us and that person would be charged with the appropriate UCMJ article. However, without going into all the details, there was a method in which a service member and a local woman could go out together and do whatever consenting adults do. So I won’t try to fool you and say that sex between adults didn’t occur – it did. And it may or may not have included the exchange of money depending on the situation. As with all third world countries, socio-economic conditions will force people to do whatever it takes to survive.

    Now, for what I personally observed and this is in no way scientific data. Pedophilia was strictly forbidden, both by U.S. military and Philippines officials. Did we observe it – yes. I personally took custody of a military female who tried to solicit an undercover local policewoman posing as an underage girl. We took custody of two military males trying to rape a 13 year-old military dependent daughter, after being stopped by other sailors. There was an infamous case of a U.S. civilian that killed a little girl by raping her. He was tried by the local courts and sentenced to life in a Philippine prison – his life was terminated a few months into his sentence. Other cases that I was not personally involved but briefed on included several stings conducted by NIS (now known as NCIS) and local authorities. It was a crime that was taken very seriously.

    The case that I remember the best, involved a U.S. civilian, mother and father with no military connection (this means they were in the country on their own) who tried to sell their 10-year old daughter for sex to local men because they thought they would be interested in a blond haired, blue eyed girl. The local police wanted to turn the parents over to us because they did not want to deal with it. We had zero jurisdiction and told them we could not take custody and notified the U.S. Embassy. In the end, the local police transported the parents to the Embassy, but not before providing each with some local hands-on justice. Pictures were posted at local bars were civilian tourists tended to gather as a deterrent factor. If you ever saw these pictures you would almost feel bad for them…almost.

    Anyway, sorry to be so long, but most pedophilia was conducted by European men, who for some reason, tend to be into that sort of thing. Stings were common and hands-on justice by local police was just as common.

    I am not saying it didn’t happen, but it is definitely not legal and very bad for your health if you got caught. For U.S. personnel, if the host country declined legal rights, justice was usually swift (although not as painful and satisfying as local hands-on justice!) and resulted in BCD and some prison time. Hope this helps.

  78. Booboo Says:

    Thank you for the info. I have been told that it is by military people and others. I have also been told that
    it is not uncommon for parents to send their kids out for prostitution. At any rate, legal or not, it is an atrocity and it happens.

    Thanks for the info..I am sure it will open many eyes.

  79. Catherine Says:

    I completely agree that what this pervert was going to do is completely deplorable, disgraceful and just downright nasty. I do have a question – please pardon my ignorance – is there a way to give her his retirement and leave her on TRICARE until she can get on her feet? Is there a way to give him intensive, long-term mental help? Would that even work with someone like him?

  80. Kris Says:

    She will lose the benefits the day he loses the benefits. As far as Scott is concerned, there is little they can do for Scott if he is truly a pedophile. Pedophiles generally cannot be rehabilitated. THAT is why they are put on sex offender lists. Right now, they are trying to decide what to do with Scott…like give him a shorter sentence with the condition that he get psychological counseling. Either way, he is still going to serve time…whether it is the mandatory minimum or the maximum. With his background, I would not be a bit surprised if the judge threw the book at him.

  81. CW LT Says:

    You speak without facts, sex offenders re-offend at a much lower rate than many think, in fact, sex offenders reoffend at a rate that is around 15% without treatment and 7% with treatment. The rate for other criminals is 24%. This is from Washington State Corrections website.

    As for Scott, he can be rehabilitated, just like other sex offenders. In fact, there is a sex offender list, however, just because they are on the list does not mean they are a threat to society. Which is why there are different levels of sex offenders.

    It is true, the justice system is evaluating how to sentence Scott, and yes, he will serve time no matter what the outcome, either SOSSA or prison.

Leave a Reply

Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

Enter the word yellow here:

Available on Kindle


Do you support stricter gun laws?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...