“He doesn’t seem to be that type of guy”

Two weeks ago fire department officials were called to a mobile home for a report of a fire. Inside the home, the fire department found 3 bodies.

The home was occupied by Jennifer Ison, 31. One of the bodies found was identified as Mrs. Ison. Jennifer Ison had two daughters Shannah, 10, and Marissa, 3. The other two bodies were identified as the children.

Autopsies showed that only one of the bodies had died from the fire. Jennifer Ison had died from strangulation. Shannah had died from blunt force trauma to the head. Marissa is reported as having died from smoke inhalation. Autopsies also showed that one of the children had been raped (some reports say it was the 10 year old child.)

Police say that Jennifer Ison had been dating a man named Robert L. Drown Jr., 27, for a short term, limited time. And they say they have a DNA match to Drown.

Drown reportedly does have a criminal history. And he is on sex offender lists in West Virginia and Ohio for sex offenses against adult females. He was reportedly living in West Virginia.

Drown was arrested in West Virginia at some point for failure to register as a sex offender. And he was still in jail when he was charged with 3 counts of murder, 1 count of rape, and 1 count of first degree burglary and arson.

irontontribune.com       kentucky.com           wave3.com

statejournal.com            dailymail.com       kentucky.com

Dating can be scary. But usually most people think of dating as taking a chance of being emotionally hurt. Unfortunately, even casual dating can be more serious.

Most people are aware that the sex offender registary’s keep track of person’s who have committed some type of sexual abuse of children. But they also keep track of offenders who have committed some type of sexual offense against adults. As far as I can tell, that is what Drown’s offenses were for.

I always encourage parents to check out people who come in close contact with their children for the children’s protection. But women should also check for their own protection.

You meet a guy and he is charming, sweet, and nice. He asks you out and you decide to go. But some sex offenders are charming, sweet and nice much of the time. Take a minute and check, it never hurts. Do it to be on the safe side.

But in this day and age people move around. You might check the area they live in and miss the fact that they are registered in another county or state. There is a way around that. Use the sites like the  Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Registry  (national search) or familywatchdog.us.

I do not know of any way to check for any previous domestic violence history, but some areas do have some of their court records online. To do a check there, you often have to check each county they have lived in. You can also run names on Google to see if their are any newspaper articles online.

Many times when a discussion turns to an old girlfriend of a new boyfriend, your first thought might be on whether they still have feelings for the old girlfriend. And it might be easy to think that any problems they may have had, just had to have been all the other parties fault. Sometimes it isn’t, though it may be presented that way. But be alert and sensitive to any indications of controlling or abusive behavior in that relationship. Because controlling and abusive behaviors are often a pattern that will carry over into any new relationships.  



  1. Peter Del Valle said,

    May 27, 2007 at 2:37 pm

    This is another sad, sad story that didn’t have to happen. The very fact that there are over a half million people who have committed atrocities against our children who are out of prison is frightening, to say the least. But to have this insane act of domestic terrorism just cements the fact that the United States needs to do one thing: Ban sex offenders to colonies, even after their prison term expires.

    Although I’ve posted to several sex offender blogs, I still feel it’s very important to get this message through. Our children and families are under a greater threat of domestic terrorism than at any point in our country. We should consider not only restriction the length of distance a child molester lives from our schools and parks, but consider a concentrated place to intern registered sex offenders AWAY from ALL children and vulnerable citizens.

    It is time we seriously consider building sex offender colonies throughout the western United States and Alaska.

    It is obvious. Nobody wants sex offenders to live in their neighborhoods, or even their cities. I’m a parent, and I would fight tooth and nail to prevent sex offenders from living anywhere that children may live, even if their victims were people they knew. It means NOTHING to me; what means EVERYTHING to me is they committed an atrocious crime against children. That’s enough for me.

    Unfortunately, these sex offenders have rights. If they are not in prison, they will probably get the ACLU to sue the city and we will have to spend thousands of dollars defending the restrictions.

    The ONLY thing, therefore, is to create an amendment to the US Constitution, creating sex offender colonies to restrict where these convicted sex offenders live in the first place. How to do this?

    The first thing that needs to be done is to create an outline of such an amendment. I looked at the process for how an amendment is created. Here is the process:

    Under Article V, there are two ways to propose amendments to the Constitution and two ways to ratify them.

    To propose an amendment

    1. Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or
    2. Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.

    To ratify an amendment

    1. Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
    2. Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it.

    I would submit that the state legislature route would probably be more effective, but the congressional method can be tried first. It can effectively be used as a litmus test for voting, i.e., if someone doesn’t want to vote for proposing the amendment in congress, their 2008 opponent can have a field day in saying that the incumbent protects sex offenders at the expense of children’s safety, etc.

    Such an amendment would solve many problems. First of all, the registry would not exist in its current form. Parents don’t have to worry where the sex offenders live, as they all would, by law, have to live in the colony. This also eliminates the need for GPS, as the sex offenders would be restricted to the colony in the first place. No worries about convicted child molesters stalking your children’s school or favorite park, or trolling on the Internet.

    Next, registrants would constitutionally have to be subjected to non-court ordered search of their premises within the zone. In addition, all their mail and phone calls would constitutionally be authorized to be monitored for illicit activities. Internet usage would also be strictly regulated, with all file storage for every computer actually done at the server-level. In addition, emails would be assigned by the administration, no Instant messaging or accessing MySpace or other children sites allowed, and all keystrokes and sites visited will be recorded 100%. All costs for such usage would be borne out by the offender, incidentally.

    All registrants would be required to work, with their paychecks being handled by the administrators. Deductions for medical, rent, all services, and everything else would be done automatically, and any credit the registrant have be used for discretionary income ONLY from the colony store. Also, EVERY registrant will be required to go through treatment appropriate to his crime, and be certified as cured; otherwise, he can be subject to a felony charge and returned to prison.

    Now, please keep in mind one thing: The sex offender colony is NOT…repeat…NOT a replacement for tough, appropriately long, non-paroleable sentencing guidelines in the first place! THAT IS PARAMOUNT. The colony would exist because society cannot handle the large amounts of offenders in their neighborhoods, with the inherent terror parents have with the knowledge that offenders are around their children. Therefore, the colony is SPECIFICALLY for offenders to spend their entire registration periods in a constitutionally-approved manner, eliminating the need for registries as they exist now.

    Keep in mind, many offenders also are able to leave the registry for certain crimes after a specified amount of time has passed. Therefore, once a registrant’s time period has expired, he can petition the administration to be relieved of the duty to register and live in the SORERA zone. A panel of professionals, law enforcement individuals, and the offender’s victim representatives, will go over the request. If they feel the offender is ready to join society, then he can leave the zone and live anywhere he wants, although he will have to permanently register with law enforcement wherever he goes for the rest of his life. Bear in mind, also, that any registrant who has to register for life will NEVER get the opportunity to leave the zone. Only the most benign of the registrants will ever be allowed to leave.

    So there you have it. With a constitutional amendment, we can control where they live, where they work, and how they communicate, with confidence that they won’t have a “relapse” when our own children are in striking distance.

    All interested people are encouraged to write to me at man4theages@hotmail.com to further this just cause.

  2. Gallowsman said,

    May 27, 2007 at 11:01 pm

    There are those that support you Peter and that is unfortunate for us all.

    Anyone who values their liberties and who has studied history should be afraid – very afraid — of these laws and people like you Peter. Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, all of them must be laughing and rolling in their graves seeing America enact and enforce the identical laws they enacted some seventy years ago.

    Long before Hitler killed the first Jews in Nazi Germany, he paved the way for the wholesale disenfranchisement of all human beings by — you guessed it — attacking the rights of sex offenders just like what is happening now. From 1933 through 1936, a series of amendments were passed to Paragraphs 173 through 188 of the German Penal Law specifically targeting homosexuals and others determined to be “sexual deviants.” See, your idea is not original Peter. Here is something you and your supporters should find supportive to your cause:

    “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” — Adolph Hitler (Mein Kampf)

    The sex offender laws created under the Nazi Third Reich may as well have been the model for “Megan’s Law” and many of the other Sex Offender laws being passed and enacted all over this once Great Nation. They established the first sex offender registry, required sex offenders to register their whereabouts and to wear emblems like pink triangles, carry special identification papers, and established draconian punishments for sex crimes that included longer prison terms, loss of voting and civil rights, civil confinement in concentration camps, and the death penalty. (Any of this sound familar to you Peter?) All of these laws were justified by the Nazi’s in the same way that you and our present-day politicians justify Megan’s Law and thousands of other restrictions: to protect the children from sexual predators. If it that was good enough for Hilter then it is must be good enough for people like you and our leaders.

    Of course, as history shows us, the targeting of sex offenders is just a way to establish the precedent of wholesale deprivation of human rights in preparation for attacks against ALL the people you and other like you deem as unworthy to live and/or work in our communities. Even now these existing statues are being modified and applied to other individuals, illegal aliens, and even the homeless to imprison and/or banish them.

    It’s doubtful that the German people would have acquiesced to Hitler’s rounding up Jews, Gypsies, Communists, Socialists, trade unionists, and so forth, and sending them off to death camps in 1933 when he first ascended to power. Hitler then, as is now, had to first establish a precedent that some people were subhuman and unworthy of human rights — and he started with the most universally despised group he could find just as you have. And just as Hilter moved on to others using these laws then, so has our Government.

    Martin Luther King, Jr. said it all;
    ” Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. ”
    — Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Anyone who thinks that this couldn’t happen again is delusional. The simple fact is that history shows that you can’t single out one group for deprivation of civil rights without weakening those rights for everyone else. Which of us will be next? You? Me? Our children and grandchildren?

    Eventually we all will experience these laws for ourselves, and we will decry and deplore their applicagtion to us as we are marched to the Gas Chambers just at did the Jews, Gypsies, Communists, Socialists, trade unionists, and millions of others did some 70 years ago.

    The only question remains Peter is which side of the Barbed Wire will you be on?

    ” How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.”
    — Adolph Hitler

    And just for the record. The person who gave me the above information still has her Registration Number tattooed on her forearm. I doubt many here will have the first hand knowledge of these laws and their consequences so readily “burned” into their bodies and souls. “NEVER AGAIN!”

  3. tsand said,

    May 28, 2007 at 12:41 am

    Benjamin Franklin said:
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    Even peace may be purchased at too high a price.
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.
    The strictest law sometimes becomes the severest injustice.

    RSO restriction laws have not worked nor protected children. In the majority of new sex crimes, Those arrested, have never been arrested before. The recividism of RSO’s commiting new sex crimes is very low. I am a RSO from 1989 and i have not reoffended, yet someone like John Couey (In my State) commits a horrible terrible crime and i get treated like i was Couey and punished by the new laws Florida has passed. I’ve made serious changes in my life since 89, Yet i am still subject to these punitive restriction laws that do not work. I have been harassed/stalked twice due to being on a public registry. Dont think for a mintue that just because i’m a convicted felon, i dont have a firearm in my home to protect myself and i would not hesitate to shoot and kill someone to protect my family! Frankly, not all RSO’s are child molesters. I know a guy that got convicted of raping a 14 yr old. He was 18 at the time, in a nightclub. The girl got in with a “fake ID” stating she was 18. They got together, had consenual sex, later he gets arrested for rape. Because Florida doesnt have a age defense law, he was found guilty and is now a registered sex offender. Where is the sense? He wasnt looking to have sex with a minor but someone his own “legal” age. Not all RSO’s are really RSO’s.
    Peter, should the Nation ever pass a “colony” as you propose, I will certainly rise up and defend myself! This land was founded on Liberty and just because our gov’t passes a law, doesnt mean it is a good law. America has many problems, the biggest being our elected officials passing unforceable laws that do nothing to protect, rather they should be concentrating on finding solutions rather than continuing to pass punitive laws that arent based on restoration. Just ask the State of Iowa where thousands of RSO’s quit registering because these new laws were more punishment to a specific group of society, Isnt it better to keep your enemies close by where you know where they are? Murder is by far the most violent crime, yet your next door neighbor could have a murder conviction or be a drug addict/dealer, or a thief or a arsonist and you would never know it, wheres the sense in not knowing? are you better protected because you dont know? No.

    We need to be looking for the cause of these sex crimes. The problem is, Our gov’t isnt interested in looking and Peter, you arent looking either.

  4. May 28, 2007 at 12:43 am

    Hubert H. Humphrey: “It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”

    Henri-Fredrick Amiel: Liberty, equality – bad principles! The only true principle for humanity is justice; and justice to the feeble is protection and kindness.

    A quote can be found for just about every postion you wish to take on every issue.
    Should every citizen not be protected from those who wish them harm? Should our children not be protected from those who wish to exploit their innocence and cause harm to them? Using the logic that it is wrong to segregate sex offenders from society because it is comparable to what Hitler did is wrong and offensive. Segregating a sex offender is done for the protection of society and our children. If sex offenders use that logic to say they should remain free, because Hitler also locked them up- then why shouldn’t murderers also use that logic. I’m sure Hitler also locked up a few murderers during his time
    In case you haven’t noticed from the links on the left, I am in favor of protecting children from sex offenders. If that means curtailing their rights a bit, then I would suggest that they consider that before making a move on a child.

  5. Peter Del Valle said,

    May 28, 2007 at 1:16 am

    Thank you for your very thoughtful prose, Home. I can assume, then that you will be supporting the Amendment, as proposed with the guidelines in the initial post?

  6. May 28, 2007 at 2:37 am

    I don’t know that I would be supporting your amendment. I have my own thoughts as to what should happen with sex offenders.

  7. May 28, 2007 at 2:48 am

    “In the majority of new sex crimes, Those arrested, have never been arrested before”
    I am glad you agree that the sex offender laws are working as a deterrent to continuing abuse by known sex offenders.Now we just have to get those who are teetering on the edge of their first offense to listen to you and to what they would be giving up if they act on their impulses. Thanks for helping to get the message out.

  8. Peter Del Valle said,

    May 28, 2007 at 8:27 pm

    “I don’t know that I would be supporting your amendment. I have my own thoughts as to what should happen with sex offenders.”

    Well, I cannot condone any acts that would ultimately negate or hamper the ability for communities to effectively monitor the offenders. I sincerely hope you weren’t talking about physical retribution or worse. That is why I’m proposing to do this in a constitutionally approved manner, which is both above board and passes legal muster.

    I appreciate the opportunity to post, though, and I suspect that you actually agree with my tenet more than disagree. Thank you and good luck.

  9. TAO said,

    June 22, 2007 at 5:07 pm

    “Peter Del Valle” is a dangerous man. He would do the same thing to an entire class of people that we did to the Japanese-Americans in World War II. He doesn’t respect the ideas this country was founded on and his ideas could destroy countless families and wreck literally tens of thousands of childrens’ lives if they were ever implemented, but I have faith that the people of this country are not stupid enough to cater to his insanity. See http://angryoffender.com/subtle_manipulation.html and learn how the media is changing the way you think without you even noticing.

  10. June 22, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    So TAO, you are against segregating sex offenders from children. You may be right. That might not be an appropriate solution. Then I take it that you are in favor of Texas and Louisiana and other states, in setting the death penalty as a possible penalty for rape? You may be right. Segregation may not be an appropriate solution and may not work. Perhaps removing the risk entirely is a better solution.
    It amazes me the number of people who will come out in support of a man who is accused of raping and murdering a 10 year old child, her mother and her 3 year old sister. The numbers who support this type of atrocity, the vehemence of their arguments of their right to commit rape, some admitting to similar crimes, apalls me and certainly pushes me toward favoring the death penalty.

%d bloggers like this: