Right here, in this youtube video: “David Shurter speaks for testify project…” You don’t even have to watch much of it, Shurter makes the claim only 20 seconds in.
On his blog, Shurter now says that his father was not involved in cannibalism and any suggestion that Shurter said he was would be “so way off base”. But the evidence is right here for you to see and hear. Shurter says that his father was High Priest of a satanic cult operating in Omaha…”and as his son I participated in and witnessed cannibalism, blood sacrifice and murder at his side…”. He can’t even remember what lies he has told about his family & childhood – all the proof that anyone needs, to know that this man is a liar and a fraud!
David Shurter defends convicted pedophiles and slanders child victims!
This hypocritical fraud calls himself a child sex abuse victim advocate, which just makes my blood boil. He rants on & on in his blog postings about child sex trafficking being a huge problem and a terrible evil that nobody cares about but him, but IN HIS BOOK – “Rabbit Hole” – he calls convicted pedophiles Walter Carlson and Mark Andersen his friends and claims they were “set up” for wrongful prosecution by child prostitutes and their parents. Quoting from his book;
“It was also during Project Clean-up that Mark and Walt were charged with crimes against children, which I found to be ridiculous. Mark had invited three hustlers to spend the night on his living room floor and had either inadvertently or intentionally touched one boy’s butt. The boy’s parents tried to extort money out of Mark and failed, then turned to the police and pressed charges.”
“Suddenly, the Omaha World-Herald, whose owner Harold Andersen was reportedly involved in the Larry King/Franklin Credit Union scandal, began touting Walt, the shyest person I’d ever met, as the Pied Piper of Pornography, and Mark and Walt were proclaimed as menaces to society by the local media”.
“Having to buy a plane ticket two weeks in advance, I spent the next two weeks sobbing, waiting to fly back to Omaha to say goodbye to everyone in my life. Omaha media stories that week said David was killed by his roommate Mike James, for reasons unclear; John Joubert was convicted and sentenced to death; and Mark Andersen and Walt Carlson were convicted and sentenced to spend years in prison”.
“No real evidence linked Mark and Walt to any crime, but Omaha had become a circus dictating justice from a kangaroo court. The fact that the parents of the boy had tried to extort money from Mark before going to the police (which came out in court), was insufficient to save him and Walt from prison”.
Shurter calls himself an advocate for child sex abuse victims, but when his friends were charged with crimes against children, did he believe the children? NO! Even now, when he wrote this book, he dismissed the child victim’s disclosures as “ridiculous”. He goes on to refer to the three boys, who were 11 and 12 years old*, by the derogatory term of “hustler” rather than as child sex trafficking victims – which is what they would be, if they really had been prostituting themselves.
*[Quoted from Mark Andersen’s appeal, click on State vs Andersen link further down; “Mark G. Andersen appeals his jury convictions and sentences on two charges of first degree sexual assault and three charges of sexual assault on a child. The victims were three preteenage boys in Omaha, J.M., B.T., and S.M…Andersen at time of trial was a 38-year-old homosexual male; his alleged victims, J.M., B.T., and S.M., testified truthfully to Andersen’s sexual behavior toward them; and at the time the offenses occurred, J.M. and S.M. were each 11 years old, and B.T. was 12 years old.”]
He insinuates that because the boys were supposedly involved in prostitution, that would make them more likely to be lying about his good friend Mark Andersen abusing them! Some sex trafficking victim advocate he is – what a fraud! Shurter shows no understanding at all, that when an adult pays a child for sex that makes the adult guilty of child sex trafficking, and that the child is always victimized by such a transaction. He even commits the infamous sex crime denialist rationalization of minimizing the seriousness of the children’s accusations, saying that Andersen might have either “inadvertently” [HAH!] or intentionally “touched one boys butt” – but only one boy and he only touched it, he seems to be saying.
Shurter then goes on to slander the victim’s parents as extortionists, and dismiss the victim’s disclosures as payback for Andersen not paying the alleged extortion! He repeats this slander several times, even falsely claiming that it was established as fact in the trial.
Most outrageous of all, Shurter dismisses all of the victim’s disclosures and testimony, and all of the child pornography seized by police, as: “No real evidence linked Mark and Walt to any crime”.
Well, that’s a crock of BS – as this appeals court ruling against Mark Andersen demonstrates with great detail and thoroughness –
“Each boy’s testimony corroborates the testimony of the other two. All three boys testified as to the defendant’s invitations to stay overnight and the fun places the defendant took them. Each boy related the sexually explicit content of the movies they were shown until late at night and testified of being awakened by the defendant’s sexual acts. Two victims testified that the defendant required them to remove all but their underwear before sleeping in his bed with him. This evidence establishes a “modus operandi” and helps corroborate the victims’ testimony. Andersen’s testimony in large part also corroborated the victims’, except he denied sexual misconduct”.
“Sexual assault on a child is an extremely serious and deplorable crime. Andersen’s suggestion that he should receive a lesser penalty because he chose as his victims children whom he claimed had already been subjected to sexual contact is abominable. Andersen, in his brief, points to nothing in the record indicating that two of his victims were, in fact, previously subjected by others to the type of sexual abuse that Andersen inflicted upon them”.
“Neither the trial record nor the presentence investigation reflects any mitigating factors justifying lesser sentences for Andersen’s criminal conduct as determined by the jury in its verdicts. If anything, considering the magnitude, number, and frequency of the crimes the record shows Andersen committed, and considering the impact upon the victims, as shown by the presentence investigation, more severe sentences might well have been justified”.