SunJournal.com - Raymond is not a monster


Clear Clippings I've read Clear all Clippings

Comments

Posted By:Valerie at May 9, 2008 6:21 AM (Suggest Removal)
the problem is you are defending him saying how you know a different jim raymond.The problem is you are defending him because YOU want to believe that he could not do this. The REAL problem is you are not listening to his own words that he did touch young children.

| Add your comments

Posted By:TSS at May 9, 2008 6:25 AM (Suggest Removal)
Are you kidding me? They watched him on camera for quite some time before stopping him. It was clear that he wasn't there browsing for merchandise. Also, he admitted to what he did at the school. He deserves every nasty look or word that comes his way and then some.

| Add your comments

Posted By:Bravo 6 Alpha at May 9, 2008 8:02 AM (Suggest Removal)
Jane, you are probably right, Raymond is probably not a monster, but rather stupid. If it were me, knowing I'd probably be under surveillance, I would take extra pains not to give the appearance of being a stalker, and become squeeky clean. However, by his own admission he is a pedephile, and knowing the general attitudes of some of the honyuks in the area, I am surprised he is still alive.

| Add your comments

Posted By:Skip at May 9, 2008 8:30 AM (Suggest Removal)
Jane,maybe he hasn't been found guilty in a court of law yet,but he did admit to being a pedophile and that is good enough for me to say jail this jerk before something else happens.I don't know how you can possibly defend an idiot like this and call it speculation when everything that happened at Wal-Mart was recorded on video.

| Add your comments

Posted By:Dara at May 9, 2008 8:40 AM (Suggest Removal)
Jane, you need to take a step back and look at the facts. He was in the store for an hour and a half. Not your typical browser. Also, he asked for permission to be allowed around other children besides family...now if that doesn't prove he is in predatory mode.

| Add your comments

Posted By:Douglas at May 9, 2008 8:44 AM (Suggest Removal)
Jane, a predator is a predator, is a predator. They are incurable and unable to control their urges. You may know him as a descent person, but that is because you are not his target.

| Add your comments

Posted By:Jeff at May 9, 2008 8:57 AM (Suggest Removal)
Where I agree with all the comments, I do also see where Jane is coming from. Jim is not a monster; he just has some serious psychological issues. I have known him since childhood, and though I didn't see much of him after elementary school, it does all seem very clear and very possible what he did. The guy needs help for sure, and more likely should be kept away from children, but some of the comments I have read about him from the "witch-hunt" crew is just astounding. We have people claiming he should be locked up for life... It's not like he has made every effort to avoid the law and keep his urges undercover. When asked he admitted it, and admitted he probably needs help. Keep tabs on him, keep him away from children, but there is no need to treat him like a monster.

| Add your comments

Posted By:My Thoughts at May 9, 2008 9:35 AM (Suggest Removal)
I'm curious how many of you were in the interrogation room with Jim? I want to know what took place during his 'confession' and how long he was in that room with the cop. I do not know what happened in that room, other than from what the media has reported and what was in the affidavit, but I know that Jim would not fair well in this type of situation. Police get 'confessions' out of people all the time that are not true, this often comes out during trails, but sadly not always and sometimes innocent people are convicted. I know that Jim loved his students and had a passion for his teaching, I can see how this could be so easily twisted. God forbid a male take a genuine interest working with kids, he must be a pedophile! From what I saw of Jim's teaching style was that he taught children to be outspoken and outgoing, from what I understand a pedophile does the exact opposite. I've spoken with other parents whose children had Jim, wondering if their child any complaints or concerns, and I always got the same answer 'no', my kids and their friends always felt comfortable around him and that he had not touched them 'in a bad spot'. Jim taught thousands of kids over the past 5-7 years (not sure exactly how long he taught), but over those years there were 4 'victims'? That math just does not make sense. I think we need let the court system do it's job. As for this latest incident, he is being slammed for spending over an hour at Wal-Mart wandering and only buying one item. Have you been to Wal-Mart lately? I can account for many times that I have gone there for one item and was there over an hour. They say he was looking around for kids, who's to say he wasn't looking around trying to keep himself save from those of you who have posted such hateful comments. I know if someone said I should be killed, or be castrated, I'd be watching my back all time and very paranoid and would attempt to make every effort to be aware of my surroundings where ever I went. I can see how this 'looking around' could be seen as 'crusing' but my goodness, that's stretching it. I pray that Jim gets a jury that has not been part of this witch-hunt, it just seems odd that something like this comes up, just prior to a trail (I don't know when it will be, but it must be coming up soon? Has anyone heard anything?) Thanks for reading 'My Thoughts"

| Add your comments

Posted By:BRUCE at May 9, 2008 9:47 AM (Suggest Removal)
He needs to go on the Steve Wilcos Show, Steve will straighten him out for real.

| Add your comments

Posted By:DJ at May 9, 2008 10:15 AM (Suggest Removal)
This guy is a pedophile. I don't care if he feels or the writer feels this isn't fair. This guy is dangerous and should be thrown in prison and throw away the key. Until this state takes this problem alot more seriously this will always be a problem. I am all for making pedophiles, rapists, etc serve life sentences with no parole. The victims live with this their entire life and the punishment for these pieces of garbage should be equal to the victims suffering. We need to send the message that Maine is no place for sexual predators and if they come here they will be punished severely for their actions.

| Add your comments

Posted By:VAN SMACK at May 9, 2008 10:55 AM (Suggest Removal)
DJ DO YOU KNOW JIM, ARE YOU AN EXPERTS IN PEDOPHILE. IF I HAD TO GUESS THE ANSWER IS NOT. I KNOW JIM AND MY DAUGHTER HAD HIM IN CHORUS A FEW YEARS AGO. I AM STILL NOT SURE IF HE DID THIS OR NOT. BUT MY FEELING IS BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY. BUT I AGREE WITH JANE THAT THIS AMERICA WHERE A PERSON IS CONSIDERED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN OTHER GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW. BUT IT IS HARD IN THIS CASE WHEN IT COMES TO OUR KIDS.

| Add your comments

Posted By:Bob at May 9, 2008 10:59 AM (Suggest Removal)
Who is Steve Wilcos and what are his professional credentials? If he has a proven track record of helping people with chronic problems, and he has a "show", why is he on television promoting himself when he could be solving problems for the benefit of all society. Or does he just shoot people?

| Add your comments

Posted By:AB at May 9, 2008 11:24 AM (Suggest Removal)
Anybody who gropes children is a monster. No matter how you put it and no matter how nice that person is as an adult. He has confessed to groping little kids, HELLO!

| Add your comments

Posted By:JulieL at May 9, 2008 11:25 AM (Suggest Removal)
My Thoughts you are the most level headed blogger here this morning. I WANT TO HEAR THE INTERROGATION TAPES TOO!!!!! We all read what he allegedly said in the interrogation with the police. Are we to just leave it at that and say he is guilty? NO! Was he with an attorney? Did the police give leading questions? Stop assuming the alleged confession is the end of the story. Did he ask to have contact with other kids so he could see relatives? Make money by charging for music lessons? It is frightening to me how easily this has turned into a lynch mob and the trial hasn't begun. I suggest a change of venue after the endless stories in the SJ and the mob mentality on the blogs. He very well may be guilty of inappropriately touching a student, let's allow his attorney to mount their case and see who has the best case...

| Add your comments

Posted By:AB at May 9, 2008 11:41 AM (Suggest Removal)
Gosh Julie, you make it sound like inappropriately touching a student is ok. I'll be glad when he's put away. Yeah, everyone deserves their day in court, but when someone admits to liking little girls obviously there's a problem. Four victims is four victims too many. Just think of the many more he touched that won't say anything because they feel threatened or too scared or may not even have anybody at home they can confide in.

| Add your comments

Posted By:John in Auburn at May 9, 2008 12:07 PM (Suggest Removal)
Are you folks forgetting that guilty or not, he was told to stay away from children? Wasn't he also given hours that he could and could not leave his house? He has not had his day in court but he was given restrictions until then which he has chosen to break. Let the sticks fall where they may.

| Add your comments

Posted By:My Thoughts at May 9, 2008 12:12 PM (Suggest Removal)
John, The 'home confinement rule' according to the paper, was just put into place after this recent incident, prior to this I believe he had no restrictions on WHEN he could leave his house, or at least I don't remember reading that anywhere. The paper said he was allowed brief incidental contact with minors, should he run into them at the grocery store or such (which makes this story even more odd!). Facts are getting all mixed up in the paper, just recently, one day they say he was fired, then next said he resigned. The paper said he approached 2 minors and their father was not present, but the affidavit says the father was there, the paper says he was looking at child porn, but the DA said the Feds found nothing on his computer or at his house. The witch hunt needs to end, and Jim needs to be given a fair trail.

| Add your comments

Posted By:AB at May 9, 2008 1:00 PM (Suggest Removal)
OH, he'll get his fair trial, don't worry. I do believe I read that he was not to be around children unsupervised.

| Add your comments

Posted By:JulieL at May 9, 2008 1:14 PM (Suggest Removal)
It's so simple. Let's see the Walmart video. If the father was indeed with the two girls, the detective was over reaching. Then let us hear the audio tape where he "allegedly" confessed. I do NOT condone touching children inappropriately. I also do NOT condone salacious inflammatory news articles with half truths....was the father there or not? It makes a hell of a difference to me.....

| Add your comments

Posted By:AB at May 9, 2008 1:22 PM (Suggest Removal)
Were YOU there Julie? Maybe you may know this individual, but I don't feel sorry for him one bit. He put himself in this situation. I feel sorry for the little girls who will have to go through trial with him sitting there with a smug look on his face. The audio and video tapes will probably come out in court along with any other evidence. They don't usually disclosed that information before trial. Pedophiles know what they are doing and how to accomplish what they are set out to do. They found child porn on his computer, if that's not enough than I don't what is.

| Add your comments

Posted By:My Thoughts at May 9, 2008 1:42 PM (Suggest Removal)
AB, TRY AGAIN....the DA said that they DID NOT find child porn on his computer. If that is what you are convicting this man on, then you are mistaken. The paper keeps saying he looked at child porn, but it was already proven that he was not. I don't think the sun journal printed this, I may have heard it on the news, not sure. So once again, we don't have all the facts, or all the facts have not been printed accurately. Let the man have his trail, and I agree with JulieL, it needs to be moved out of this area.

| Add your comments

Posted By:Skip at May 9, 2008 1:46 PM (Suggest Removal)
Yeah,Julie,how do you explain away his having child porn on his computer or is that okay with your standards?

| Add your comments

Posted By:AB at May 9, 2008 1:47 PM (Suggest Removal)
Ok, then he looked at child porn. IF they had absolutely nothing to go by for a trial than he would not even be going on trial. They don't just arrest people for nothing. They have to have good reason and evidence to go along with it.

| Add your comments

Posted By:My Thoughts at May 9, 2008 1:54 PM (Suggest Removal)
AB-how do you even know that? Maybe they investigated him for the porn based on the nature of the allegations. No, they do not convict people for nothing, but he is not being convicted for child porn, because as you say, they have nothing to prove that he was looking at it. This trail is based on wether or not he touched students, not on child porn, because there was no child porn. But boy it made for a great news story leading everyone to pre-convict this man! I think had the feds found child porn on his computers, he'd be sitting in federal prison right now, but he's not, and no one has heard any statements from the feds other than the DA saying they didn't find anything on his computers.

| Add your comments

Posted By:John in Auburn at May 9, 2008 2:08 PM (Suggest Removal)
My Thoughts.....If I was wrong about the curfew thing then I will stand corrected. Maybe I am confused about the time-line. AB.....the viewing of any child porn is not only illegal it is unacceptable. Why are you fighting for this guy?

| Add your comments

Posted By:AB at May 9, 2008 2:10 PM (Suggest Removal)
Well, there are four victims/witnesses who will have to stand trial with him. I feel sorry for them.

| Add your comments

Posted By:John in Auburn at May 9, 2008 2:11 PM (Suggest Removal)
Crap....I am sorry AB....I did not mean to imply you were fighting for him. Please accept my apology.

| Add your comments

Posted By:My Thoughts at May 9, 2008 2:12 PM (Suggest Removal)
Seeing no one posted knowing a date for the trial, it may be safe to assume that a trail has not been set yet. If this is the case, they may be trying to work out a plea deal with him, in which case the children would not go to trail. We do not know much about the victims, for privacy reasons for sure, but I know a lot of people who know Jim well, or had kids taught by him, and no one I know has any idea who the kids are, or the circumstances around each one. This witch hunt was so bad that I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of this kids either 'jumped on the bandwagon' themselves, or were pressured to by parents who felt vengeance after the witch hunt began. There is so much that has yet to be heard, people need to calm down.

| Add your comments

Posted By:AB at May 9, 2008 2:26 PM (Suggest Removal)
That's Ok John, I know you weren't directing that at me. I've been at the hand of a pedophile when I was a kid and back then, grown ups didn't believe kids if they told on someone. It was always the adult who was right. Unfortunately, no matter what the sentence, it will be the children who were effected that will never heal. It takes a lifetime to undo what was done. But the perp gets a slap on the hand and is handed back into society to live amongst the innocent who either can't defend themselves or will then be too scared to live freely. He'll get his free counseling, the victims will have to pay for theirs. All child molesters were/are good and friendly to the kids they victimize, it's how they get what they want. Never any complaints, until someone finally comes forward and OMG! you never would have known. They know what they are doing, until they get caught and then it's not their fault they have some kind of disease and should get treatment. All the while the victim has to live it the rest of their lives.

| Add your comments

Posted By:JulieL at May 9, 2008 2:47 PM (Suggest Removal)
Can we just play devil's advocate for just a second? What if, he never admitted to being aroused by young girls. What if, the two girls he apporached at Walmart were with their father, (supervised). Two things the police planted in the community that we have yet to hear/see and interpret ourselves. Innocent until PROVEN guilty folks. It isn't, guilty after reading SJ articles that may or may not provide all of the details.....I am very suspicious of the detective at WalMart who "talked to other parents with children at walmart that night.." in the parking lot? And one mother took the bait and said she "felt" Mr. Raymond was stalking her and her daughter BUT THE VIDEO DID NOT SUPPORT HER ALLEGATIONS.....sounds like a witch hunt from where I sit. And the worst part? If this man is guilty, the outrageous police leaks and slanted SJ articles are helping his defense team.....

| Add your comments

Posted By:Skip at May 9, 2008 3:35 PM (Suggest Removal)
So Julie,the cops have made up the part where he admits to touching little girls.Their story is all hogwash as far as you are concerned.Now they've planted a detective at Wal-Mart just to spy on this innocent guy and bait the mothers of little girls in order to support their story.Of course the guy is innocent because the little girls at school lied to begin with.Now you are playing devil's advocate as you say,so what is the next step?Arresting the little girls for telling tall tales about Mr.Nice Guy and throwing them in the slammer.

| Add your comments

Posted By:kate at May 9, 2008 3:47 PM (Suggest Removal)
Cops DO arrest people for nothing, cops DO get false confessions from people...cops are BORN abusers! Let the guy stand trial, and I would advise that he let the judge, not a jury, decide his guilt or innocence -- because people in this area are zombies who think that the law can do no wrong.

| Add your comments

Posted By:John in Auburn at May 9, 2008 3:51 PM (Suggest Removal)
You go ahead and believe all that JulieL. My guess is that the police are not wrong, the surveillance tapes do not lie, and that the DA does not pursue cases unless they feel there is merit. On the other hand, based on your above comment, I did not realize you had already seen the video! Do tell us what it showed!

| Add your comments

Posted By:My Thoughts at May 9, 2008 4:02 PM (Suggest Removal)
John, I don't think JulieL saw the video, she was referring to what was in the affidavit (posted some time last week?) In the Affidavit the detective said that there was not enough evidence to prove that he had been stalking that mother. He was arrested on the basis that he allegedly had contact with 2 minors at Wal-Mart, not that he was stalking anyone. But it made for a good news huh? Taint the jury pool a little more?? You believed it! You can't believe everything you read!!

| Add your comments

Posted By:JulieL at May 9, 2008 6:42 PM (Suggest Removal)
Thanks Mt Thoughts. I am amazed by what is passing as "truths." I only know what I have read in the paper and on these blogs. 1. The police say he admitted to touching a young female student inappropriately. 2, The police say he admitted to being aroused by young girls. 3. An off duty detective spotted Mr. Raymond at Walmart. 4. "He walked past a young girl playing a video game. 5. He then turns around and walks past the same young girl passing within feet of the young girl. He didn't talk to her, he didn't look at her, he walked within feet of her when he walked past her. COME ON PEOPLE. I want ALL pedophiles in jail. I want all people charged with crimes to have a fair trial in a court of law and not via police leaks and inflammatory SJ stories.....SHOW ME the evidence before he is locked up.

| Add your comments

Posted By:Keith at May 9, 2008 7:30 PM (Suggest Removal)
I am amazed that anytime a case does go to court, the state and the city are at fault for letting it get that far they never do anything, they aren't tough enough etc etc. Now they are being tough and everyone says they are setting him up. Can't have it both ways.

| Add your comments

Posted By:JulieL at May 9, 2008 7:33 PM (Suggest Removal)
I just saw Hulk Hogans son got 9 months in jail, his license taken away for 5 years etc etc etc and he was charged with reckless driving resulting in the severe injury of his passenger. I harken back to the young Karkos of Lewiston who also drove recklessly but his passenger died. He got no time, no fine, nada. That is a travesty of just. The courts let the dead young man's family down. Now lets allow the courts to do their job in Mr Raymond's case and see what unfolds. None of us is prevy to the audio or video evidence, he is innocent until the court says otherwise.

| Add your comments

Posted By:John in Auburn at May 9, 2008 9:29 PM (Suggest Removal)
OK JulieL and My Thoughts....you have convinced me.....let's let "the Monster" loose on the streets with no restrictions until his day in court. And IF (remember, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here) he performs a pedophile act on a child, I hope you can live with yourselves.

| Add your comments

Posted By:My Thoughts at May 9, 2008 9:34 PM (Suggest Removal)
That's real thoughtful of John.....I don't recall requesting that anywhere, but what makes me upset is that you are saying he would actually go and 'touch' a kid out in public???? He was in Wal-Mart with cameras every step you take, do you really think he'd try to do something? The last time I checked, saying hello back to a child, in passing, with a parent standing right there, does not make you a pedophile. I know many of the parents whose kids he taught on a more one on one level, and those that I have spoken with have said their child never felt uncomfortable when ALONE with Mr. Raymond...if he was a pedophile, this is when he would have taken advantage of a child, and as far as I know, this was never the case. I really wish I knew who the people who made allegations against him were and what the allegations are, that would clear a lot of things up (for better or for worse). Again, we need to wait until trail.

| Add your comments

Posted By:AB at May 9, 2008 9:49 PM (Suggest Removal)
JulieL you just stated many reasons why he should be locked up. He's a pedophile, he's admitted to it. I doubt that the police, the news, the newspapers and any other media out there has made all that up. He should have been under house arrest from the start.

| Add your comments

Posted By:Keith at May 9, 2008 9:53 PM (Suggest Removal)
Julie...1) that has nothing to do with the case at hand and 2) it goes against the point yo are trying to make as they let him get away with no punishment for a crime committed. thanks for proving everyone else's points.

| Add your comments

Posted By:AB at May 9, 2008 9:57 PM (Suggest Removal)
My Thoughts.. don't you remember he was SHOPPING at walmart, only he wasn't shopping for the kind of merchandise you would shop for. First of all if a complete stranger looked at my daughter and said hello, I would definitely find that very suspicious. I have always taught my kids that the monsters out there looking for kids are not always the ugly and scary ones or the ones who dress different from everybody else. Most pedophiles are very well known and liked amongst neighbors and can easily fool anyone. Makes them look innocent so those like you will try to clear their names. I'm not so easily fooled.

| Add your comments

Posted By:My Thoughts at May 9, 2008 10:09 PM (Suggest Removal)
AB, The affidavit said that the child said hello first, and that it was a former student of his. So he was not talking to random kids. If the kid didn't understand what why Mr. Raymond was not in school, she of course would have said hello. Again, not a crime! Also the article said he bought "wasp spray" and that the detective saw him in Lawn and Garden (hmm, that'd be the first place I'd go look for bug repellent), then the video game section, then by dairy, which is right where the wasp spray is, with the chemicals. I do happen to know that Jim was selling Nintendo Wii's on Ebay, so I'm guessing his quick stop at the video game section was to see if they had any, and after a quick glance noticed there were not any (if you've ever tried to buy a Wii in the store, you know that they are near impossible to find, but turn a great profit on ebay). The affidavit said he walked past, then came back, it is possible that he walked by, then decided to go back and take a quick look for any Nintendos...after all, it does say that he did not look at or make contact with those children. Stop making judgments without all the facts, I'll admit that I don't know all the facts, and I'll be very saddened IF he is found guilty, but I will not be a part of the lynch mob.

| Add your comments

Posted By:JulieL at May 9, 2008 10:54 PM (Suggest Removal)
Keith, my point in bringing up the Karkos verdict, is how uneven sentencing seems to be. Where was the outrage in that case? Mr Raymond is being vilified by the police, SJ and people on this blog, before any of us are privy to the evidence. I am naturally suspicious of leaked police information and will keep an open mind until I see and hear it for myself...

| Add your comments

Posted By:John in Auburn at May 10, 2008 12:35 AM (Suggest Removal)
You folks are missing the point......accused bank robbers and murders are generally kept in jail until their hearing. Why should this pedophile be let loose until his? As I said before, go ahead and let him loose, can you look yourself in the mirror if he violates a child during that time? On the other hand, I can sleep easily at night if I knew he was restricted some how during his wait for a fair trial.

| Add your comments

Posted By:more support at May 10, 2008 7:24 AM (Suggest Removal)
People on this blog don't have the facts straight because 1. they don't know the parties involved 2. they believe what the newspaper prints (which often contradicts what was printed previously) 3. they believe what the Auburn Police Dept says (sorry to those good cops out there but I know too many of the bad ones) Here are some facts I know for sure: 1. they did not find porn on his computer 2. the father was with the kids at Walmart 3. the newspaper prints what they are told or what the reports think, not necessarily factual info 4. the APD is capable of setting people up and twisting things for their own political gain (see the case with the Mayor's DUI arrest) 5. we live in the USA, where people are innocent until proven guilty 6. it's 2008--we should have moved beyond lynchings and witch trials 7. people have been falsely accused of crimes they did not commit. 8. Pedophiles have gotten away with crimes they did commit. 9. Until the trial when the info all comes out, we will not know for sure what did/did not happen.

| Add your comments

Posted By:more support at May 10, 2008 7:37 AM (Suggest Removal)
I also know many many kids he taught (including my own) and the parents as well. He has overwhelming support from everyone I have encountered, and all of us (kids and parents) want him back. I also know all the kids and all the allegations, and they are all very minor and could easily have been accidental. One of the charges is so ludicrous it actually helps his case because no one in their right mind would believe it). Knowing as many actual facts and details as I do, I am ready for Jim to start teaching my kids again. Yes I would leave them alone with him as I have many times in the past.

| Add your comments