Just so Bill's own words and sincerity are included in the conversation, this email went out earlier this week.

Quote
Dear Friends, I have some difficult news to share with you. A little over a year ago, while driving a fully packed car back to Texas after spending the summer months in Ithaca, I took a detour through Ontario Canada to teach a weekend workshop. Upon my return trip to the US, my car was selected for a random border search in Detroit. I happened to be carrying a sizable amount of cash - over the legal limit of $10,000 - this included my summer earnings from teaching in New Zealand, Australia and a few other places, including travel reimbursement. Border patrol discovered the money when they searched the car, which raised suspicion and prompted the guards to do a thorough strip search of my car. After 7 hours of intensive questioning, they let me go. But they confiscated all of my electronic equipment, including my laptop and several hard drives which contained years of personal digital storage. This included pornography.... mostly downloaded from legal file sharing sites in large batches. These included a sizable number of images stored in folders on my external hard drive. I would periodically sort through and delete any undesirable pictures such as child porn. I was aware that some images remained which included girls who were considered minors. My attorneys and I resolved the money issue and proved it was legit. I heard nothing for almost a year. That is, until August ’09. I heard through my attorney that they went through every image on every hard drive, and found some photos which they determined to be of girls under the age of 18. This was enough for them to issue a Federal indictment with two counts: 1) possession; and 2) transportation of child pornography. My lawyers went into negotiations with the US attorney’s office considering all options, including taking this to trial. But it was difficult - if not impossible - to dispute the fact that my hard drives contained the images. It was also impossible to dispute the fact that I crossed the US border with them in my possession (even though that was obviously not my purpose for crossing). I was not accused of sharing, trading or taking pictures of this nature or of having any sexual contact with a minor. All this has been corroborated with a polygraph. But it was enough that they were in my possession while crossing over the Canadian/US boarder. In the end, I had to accept a shocking plea that tied me to the transportation charge which carries a 5 year minimum mandatory sentence. My attorneys calculated that going to trial could have resulted in an even worse scenario - potentially 10 to 20 years. So it is now a certain conclusion that I will have to serve time in a federal prison. If all goes as well as it can, I will get 5 years – with 15% reduction for ‘good behavior,' but the judge has the discretion to impose more than the minimum mandatory sentence. My sentencing date is Jan 15 of 2010. At the time of sentencing, my attorney will present character letters written by friends as well as other supporting material on my behalf to try to minimize the sentence. I take full responsibility for what has happened. I made some very unfortunate choices. I am keenly aware of why they have child pornography laws. It is not a victimless crime. Even downloading pictures creates a market for those who prey upon these innocent girls. I think of myself as a very caring and sensitive person. To think that I indirectly caused pain to anyone makes me feel very sad. I am truly sorry for being part of this problem. I hope my friends and society will forgive me. For those of you who have been sharing this with me over the past few months, I am overwhelmed for the love and support you have shown to me. It is so humbling to have so many friends with such generous hearts. Bill Borgida

As usual, you provide extremely insightful commentary.

Parole USED to mean early release from an indeterminate sentence. After many states (and the federal system) changed their laws to determinate sentencing in the 1970s, parole became a form of supervising someone upon their release, whether it was an early release or not. For instance, California requires 3 years of mandatory supervised release after one has finished their sentence, but they still call it parole. The same goes for many other states and the federal system. Today, supervised release and parole are essentially the same thing in practice. And a return to custody for violation of a condition of parole depends on what that violation was. If it was a new crime, then yes, technically one gets a new trial and is reconvicted. If it was a technical violation, the person may be returned to prison, but it isn't necessarily a new offense. Of course, then there's the back-end return to prison for a new crime, but that's a whole other discussion. (Incidentally, my Phd dissertation is on the parole system, so I'm not just pulling this out of thin air.)

I'm experiencing probably the same mixture of shock, sadness and anger that a lot of us are going through right now. I'm glad that the conversation thus far has been mature and sensitive, since many of us were / are friends of Bill. I pray we can continue in this spirit, and trusting you all to be as careful and considerate as possible.

After having seen some of the court documents, and Bill's own words, I have to wonder about the utter brazenness of his actions. Who crosses an international border with all that illegal material and suspicious objects in their car? Presuming he isn't a stupid man, I have to wonder what his thinking was.

One possibility is that he wanted to get caught. After years and years of guilt knowing that his urges are just wrong, perhaps he knew that he couldn't stop himself and that it would take a greater external intervention to stop him.

The other possibility is that the risk-taking had become part of the thrill. Eww, but not unprecedented.

The only other option I can think of is that he was such a slave to his desires that they overcame any rational thought or natural self-defense mechanisms.

Your last theory is accurate with most cases like Bills. Many sexual predators feel Just in what they do, and have some rational as to why it's okay. That Is why I take such a hard stance and objection to judging him by his status in a dance scene. That type of acceptance enables future perverts.

That's a really nice letter. And exactly the same that I might write were I in that situation.

If all he said is true, it's really awful what happened.

I like porn. (I'm sure this comes as no surprise.) I guess I'm the first to admit it here.

Although I don't ever search for underage stuff, sometimes stuff does come up that says "teen" featuring girls who look older than that, and there's stuff that features girls who might, just be looking, be younger than 18. There's really no way to tell. I don't keep any porn on my computer, so I don't have to sort through occasionally to make sure I don't have any child porn.

Regardless, if some Fed scrolled through my search history, maybe he would find something unsavory. Perhaps what happened to Bill could happen to me.

Or perhaps Bill is just a sick man who got caught.

I have a very open mind about sexual predilections. You can't help what you're into, now matter how kinky or wrong.

But you can help acting on it.

We'll never know if Bill is really into this stuff, and we'll never know if he actually really wanted to delete child pornography from his computer.

But we each now have to judge how we're going to treat Bill as a person. This is a much bigger deal, obviously, for people who are friends with him than for me. Because we're not friends. NOR AM I AN UNDERAGE GIRL.

I danced with him once. He was lovely and gracious.

Would I dance with him again? Sure.

Am I bringing my kids around if he's there? Luckily, I don't have any and I don't have to worry about it.

I'm not demonizing him. People have problems. But if he indeed is into child pornography, he needs help. It's as simple as that.

On another note, What I do find interesting is that there are no ex-moochers posting here. It would be so nice for him if one of his young friends would chime in and say something like "he never made me feel awkward or uncomfortable." I'm not speculating on why that has or has not happened. Maybe it's because of the "new yehoodi" (ducks.) I think that's what Bill really needs right now, and what would make a lot of people feel so much better here.

The polygraph Bill took showed that he hadn't ever done anything with a minor in the swing scene, I don't think we need a Moocher to come on here and reassure us of that.

Plus, Bill's needs right now, what would be "nice for him," those are like the LAST things on my mind. What would have been nice for Bill is to not be into child pornography. That's what he needs, not kind words of support from former students.

As for what would make us feel better, I can speak for myself. What would make me feel better is if we were far less accepting of creepy behavior regardless of someone's credentials as a teacher or their status in the community. My sense is that Bill got a free pass because he was a nice guy overall and he danced well and had status. Mo Jones was also a nice guy who danced well and had status. The only difference between the two was that Bill chose to go the digital route and Mo chose to go the predatory route. What would make me feel better is if the next candidate for the young girl stalker of our scene be found out quickly and shunned out of any real position before they get caught with a 14 year old girl or with hundreds of child porn pics.

No one ever said older men shouldn't dance with younger women. What I'm saying is that an old man who has a nationwide reputation for not dating anyone over 25 ought to be a red flag.

Most older men are like you and do not have a reputation for liking young girls. I say huzzah to that and welcome you. But I'm very skeptical after multiple burns of any man over 30 who continues to seek out companionship in the scene from girls over a decade younger.

You're right. I hadn't read that letter before I replied to Dave.

Also, I applaud Marcelo for eloquently and powerfully expressing thoughts that are much more reflective of my own than the ones I'm choosing to write myself.

Quote
SandyEggo is like...the 4th or 5th person on this board to say something to the effect of "it's not surprising" or "I thought he was creepy around kids" or "I heard about his reputation." And I've heard personally from others who haven't posted here. I mean even his good friends knew he had a thing about younger girls. Sooooo, red flag, anyone? I mean, what the F was he doing teaching minors everywhere he went? Why wasn't he shunned the way other creepy old men who like young girls get shunned from this scene? Had he paid some sort of dancing dues by coaching the Moochers that gave him a free pass? Was it because he didn't smell weird or he didn't have a creepy 'stache and a van with darkened windows? Was it because he kinda looked like Bill Murray?

I want to be clear that I am in no way defending Bill or his actions but obviously, it's a tricky, tricky thing. There are extremely serious charges and they're near-impossible to recover from even if they're ultimately dismissed or proven false. By this, I mean both the charges that he plead guilty to, and also any other allegations of potentially more direct inappropriate behavior.

So far on this thread, with the exception of the post by SandyEggo, I gather that most of the "I'm not surprised" comments are due to passed rumors, third-hand stories, and some undefined "creepy vibe" that some experienced. It's really difficult to make the jump from "I heard that he hooked up with an 18-year-old" or "He creeps me out" to "This guy is a pedophile." How do you quantify how "creepy" someone is or isn't and when it crosses the line?

Would you feel comfortable making that accusation without first-hand knowledge or other proof?

Likewise, I completely understand why a minor that may have been put in an inappropriate situation with any adult or person of authority may be reluctant to come forward publicly or even press charges. I do think it's very courageous and telling when SandyEggo can post from her personal experience.

You want some?

Because we could make the comparison to bankers getting caught with their pants down, to borrow a phrase. We'd start with the initial reports. From there, go on to a discussion of its immediate injurious effect. After discussion is underway, evidence would start to accumulate. Finally, the wider implications for the community would be addressed, some in a very unflattering light.

Continuing with this possible analogy, focus would have to be brought on those who would have benefited indirectly from the crimes perpetrated by the criminals. It could be posited that a sysadmin who worked at the bank would have benefited from those crimes committed by those criminals by way of association. The possibilities are endless, but we digress.

All due respect to WeOwnYou and SandyEggo, we are still missing rather important bits of information.

First, federal law criminalizes the possession of images of individuals under the age of 18 engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Unlike many states' statutory rape laws, there is no sliding scale to adjust for the offender's age or for the victim's age. That is, it is illegal if the person in question is 17 years, 364 days, and it is legal two days later.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/citizensguide_porn.html

Second. federal law imposes a uniform five year mandatory minimum for possession of images - again, with no differentiation for the offender's age or for the victim's age.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2252.html http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002252---A000-.html

The important bits of information we're missing? Exactly how old the "children" in the images possessed by Bill were, and how the government knew that.

Personally, I'm not going to treat a person who enjoys viewing 17-year olds engaged in sex acts the same way I'm going to treat a person who enjoys viewing 12- or 13-year olds engaged in sex acts. Psychology treats such persons differently. State law regarding actual sexual conduct usually treats such persons differently.

Also, I'm not going to treat a person who views images of sex acts involving 17-year olds the same as a person who actually engaged in said acts with 17-year olds - regardless of whether that person is, say, 19 (and wouldn't get an eyeblink from anyone, save draconian statutory rape states and the federal government) or 45 (and would, in fact, get a reaction).

Nor can I treat as equivalent someone like Mo Jones (who was convicted of offenses) and someone like Bill (who didn't, as the 1981 charges were dismissed). Also a note - how old was Bill in 1981? Was he so old that a relationship between him and an 18 year old would have been questionable? Does anyone here have any grounds to question the prosecutor's decision in that case not to press charges?

Finally, and this is in response to Marcelo - there is not an equivalency between people who choose to dance with young girls and who give off a creepy vibe and people who'll actually engage in criminal sexual conduct with girls below the age of consent. Socially speaking, sure, we can ostracize someone (and do, on a regular basis, all over the country, for conduct like this). We also, as a group, grant people with fame or skill more leeway than people without.

Saying, in hindsight, that we should have seen this coming or done something about it is, I would submit, just plain wrong. We only "know now" because we're given a pattern that some previous information fits, but not all, because we're ignoring those bits of information that don't fit.

At the end of the day, am I going to shun Bill after he gets out in a few years? I don't know, because I still don't know the details of the images or of any of his actual behavior otherwise. All I've heard are general "creepy guy" rumors. I might, or I might not.

I'm not angry or anything, just don't want this age thing to get blown out of proportion. I remember Bill Borgida teaching at a dance camp and bringing along a very attractive young lady to spend his non dance time with. Nothing much was ever said because she was of legal age, but much younger than Bill. The sad thing is that guys like Woody Allen have gotten away with inappropriate behavior. If anything, Woody should be serving time. I think he brainwashed his adopted young daughter. A 20 year age difference is pushing it but 30+ years is way over the line.

I'm not talking about criminal behavior. The law is the law - and if Bill didn't break the law with his actions, that's great. Certainly he's free to act in whatever way he wants as long as it's legal.

I'm just generally talking about what kinds of behavior we look out for in our dance scene. Zenin thinks that no matter the behavior, if it's not illegal then it's OK. But we all don't have the same tolerance level.

Did I know the age of the girl in the situation I addressed? No. But it was not normal behavior - and for more than just age. Even the couples I know in the dance scene whose ages are much more similar wouldn't have acted that way in public. The age difference just made the behavior stand out more.

Because of what I've seen of Bill's behavior (and heard from others), I kept my distance. It's what you're taught to do when you're a young woman and you sense that someone might take advantage of you.

I would have liked private lessons from someone of Bill's stature - and almost took some, until I realized he taught in the privacy of his own home. I didn't quite trust him enough for that!

Was I completely wrong to judge him if his actions weren't illegal? Or was I smart for following my instincts?

And if we have a collective instinct about someone in the dance scene, should we ignore it? Should we allow it if the person is a public figure or celebrity? Do we have a right to say anything about it?

There are more sides to this than just legal and illegal.

Quote
And if we have a collective instinct about someone in the dance scene, should we ignore it? Should we allow it if the person is a public figure or celebrity? Do we have a right to say anything about it? There are more sides to this than just legal and illegal.

Yes, there are more sides to this than just legal and illegal. There's a continuum (or two) at play.

But I am saying that assuming the worst is as unjustified as putting blinders on, in terms of judging other individuals' conduct in the future or in terms of reassessing treatment of Bill in the past.

I don't think any of us can say how Bill was treated was incorrect without more information about precisely what he was convicted of doing, and what other behavior was witnessed.