Speaker 1: Camp Hell. Anawaki is a production of I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: The views and opinions expressing this podcast are solely those
Speaker 1: of the author and participants and do not necessarily represent
Speaker 1: those of I Heart Media or its employees. Due to
Speaker 1: discussion of traumatic, sexual and violent content, listeners, discussion is advised.
Speaker 1: It was right around the time when I was coming
Speaker 1: out in the news that my mom was contacted by
Speaker 1: a student that was no longer there, that it turned eighteen,
Speaker 1: that pulled themselves, and then his mom was sending a
Speaker 1: lot of people in newspaper clippings and stuff, obviously before
Speaker 1: the internet, so my mom she was aware of it.
Speaker 1: This is Mark Barber. He attended in Awaki from four
Speaker 1: during the criminal investigation into the organization. It was during
Speaker 1: the end of his time there that parents were beginning
Speaker 1: to find out about the allegations against Anawaki and Lewis Petter.
Speaker 1: You could see a lot of changes. We had some visitors,
Speaker 1: they built a new clinic, there was a lot of improvement.
Speaker 1: Several staff members pretty much disappeared overnight. The staff members
Speaker 1: that I had seen that I knew were messing around
Speaker 1: with students. They kept their distance and they weren't on
Speaker 1: campus nearly as much. With allegations stacking up against an Awaki,
Speaker 1: insurance companies were beginning to refute payment. This would lead
Speaker 1: to Mark's termination or exit from Anawaki to be rushed
Speaker 1: through at this time. I was terminated March one, nineteen six,
Speaker 1: and I knew about four days before I was getting
Speaker 1: terminated they wanted me to come in put in some
Speaker 1: paperwork what my plans were. I had already been looking
Speaker 1: at schools and finishing up, you know, high school education,
Speaker 1: which I was about three years behind on with some
Speaker 1: of the testing, but they kind of rushed through it.
Speaker 1: Later in life, I found out the insurance stopped paying
Speaker 1: them because of all the allegations. They Champus said, we're
Speaker 1: not paying you. They stopped paying it. They went to
Speaker 1: my mom and dad. I think they asked him for
Speaker 1: like seventy eight thousand dollars. So I think instead of
Speaker 1: my mom just coming up and getting me and not
Speaker 1: having that closure moment that you have with your group
Speaker 1: when they pick you up by your jeans and throw
Speaker 1: you in there and everybody gives you a hug, and
Speaker 1: you exchange phone numbers, and you know, you get your
Speaker 1: stuff and you have a nice send off. You know,
Speaker 1: a lot of guys didn't get that. A lot of
Speaker 1: guys just got cold shoulder. See you later. They left
Speaker 1: one day, they went to the clinic and never came back.
Speaker 1: We don't know what happened to. So, yeah, that's how
Speaker 1: that's how my last day ended up. Scott Hole was
Speaker 1: another attendee of Anawaki at this time. He says that
Speaker 1: as soon as your insurance ran out in a weak
Speaker 1: he would then terminate you. Yeah, you know, that time
Speaker 1: during the investigation was a weird, weird time. I had
Speaker 1: been there for quite a while and I was about
Speaker 1: to get released, and all of a sudden, you know,
Speaker 1: they started like giving me all these awards and stuff,
Speaker 1: which was kind of weird. They made me a junior
Speaker 1: staff member and gave me this thing called the Silver
Speaker 1: Medallion that they only give to one person a year.
Speaker 1: I don't know, it was just like they were trying
Speaker 1: to normalize things. Actually, actually, you know when they they
Speaker 1: called it terminating when you actually, I guess graduate from there,
Speaker 1: and usually typically this I certainly found out. The w
Speaker 1: when you graduated was when your insurance ran out. So
Speaker 1: my insurance ran out to that man, Oh, you're cured,
Speaker 1: now go, you know. So I was there right as
Speaker 1: all that was going on, So I don't remember exactly
Speaker 1: the way things were around the campus. I just remember
Speaker 1: it being very, very weird. For other patients, like Mark Butler.
Speaker 1: As soon as their parents were informed of the scandal,
Speaker 1: they decided to take their kids out of the program
Speaker 1: of their own free will. I didn't know that the
Speaker 1: scandal broke until I got a letter from my father
Speaker 1: or a phone call from my father saying I'm taking
Speaker 1: you out, because inside everything was hush huhs. We didn't
Speaker 1: know nothing. I was told that there's a big lawsuit
Speaker 1: and criminal charges from my family. He said, we're taking
Speaker 1: you out. The stories of what the patients did in
Speaker 1: Awake had to endure we're beginning to leak out through
Speaker 1: the media. He says that it was so they were
Speaker 1: told to do it, and at the time he was
Speaker 1: fourteen and a half fifteen years old, they didn't know
Speaker 1: any better. They were told to take the clothes off
Speaker 1: and they would take it. Taking the pictures hm as therapy.
Speaker 1: As therapy. The boys have to get down in the
Speaker 1: septic tank and bucket them out. How are they addressed?
Speaker 1: My sentence is that he was. He was naked, uh
Speaker 1: and after he got through doing the work, he was
Speaker 1: given a chemical to put on his body and go
Speaker 1: to the shower and bade with something to kill the bacteria.
Speaker 1: Mark Barber says that while he believed many of the
Speaker 1: staff knew about the investigation and allegations against Petter and Innawaki,
Speaker 1: most would still not speak up other staff members. I'm
Speaker 1: pretty sure he knew what was going on. There was
Speaker 1: a story that a staff member told me. After I
Speaker 1: got out of being awaken, I actually found him in
Speaker 1: the early days of the internet, found his phone number,
Speaker 1: called him and talked to him. We had talked about
Speaker 1: what had happened, how in a way he got shut down,
Speaker 1: and he said that one of the nurses went into
Speaker 1: a staff meeting and said, what are you all gonna
Speaker 1: do if one of these students ends up with AIDS
Speaker 1: or HIV and he goes you could tell who the
Speaker 1: predators were and who the predators weren't by that comment,
Speaker 1: by the look on their faces. This is what the
Speaker 1: staff member told me. And he was in the group.
Speaker 1: He was in there, you know. So with that being said, yeah,
Speaker 1: I would say I would say all of them new
Speaker 1: I think some of them turned to blind eye, and
Speaker 1: you would have to be very naive, and I don't
Speaker 1: think you would have made it as a Anawaki staff member,
Speaker 1: group leader, even kitchen help if you didn't see the
Speaker 1: abuse going on. Everybody knew and everybody kept their mouth shut.
Speaker 1: O would passed. Several weeks we have received number of
Speaker 1: very serious allegations concerning both the facility out there in
Speaker 1: a number of individuals involved with him. It was just
Speaker 1: a form of their therapy. They were told to do it,
Speaker 1: and at the time he was fourteen and a half
Speaker 1: fifteen years old, they didn't know any better. I asked you,
Speaker 1: why are you letting this happen? Why are you covering
Speaker 1: up for Louis Patterer. He had no answer to that question.
Speaker 1: Involved having and this situation paid it little could be
Speaker 1: such district place and to do absolutely the contrary of
Speaker 1: what they should have done. I'm disturbed over the fact
Speaker 1: of something it gets still going on it anyway. I'm
Speaker 1: Josh Stein and this is Camp hell an AWAKEI. The
Speaker 1: Aniwaki Institution has now been under investigation by Douglas County
Speaker 1: authorities for three months. Just last week, investigators with the
Speaker 1: Department of Human Resources began talking to the more than
Speaker 1: one children now at the Douglas County facility. Right now today,
Speaker 1: we do not feel or we have not found, anything
Speaker 1: that would indicate that the children are in immediate danger.
Speaker 1: Assistant Human Resources Director Jewel Norman says her agency has
Speaker 1: found no evidence at this point to shut down the
Speaker 1: Douglas County facility. The investigation into an Awiki had brought
Speaker 1: in to include local Douglas County authorities, the Georgia Bureau
Speaker 1: of Investigations, and now the Department of Human Resources. With
Speaker 1: multiple counts of sodomy attributed to Petter and charges against
Speaker 1: other employees racking up, the center was still able to
Speaker 1: stay open. Petter had been freed from jail after supporters
Speaker 1: in the community raised the one million dollars to cover
Speaker 1: his bond. As the investigation group, more counts were being
Speaker 1: filed against Petter, eventually totaling up to twenty four counts
Speaker 1: of sodomy against him. One of the other main suspects
Speaker 1: was Head of Therapeutic Services Jim Womack, Here's former d
Speaker 1: A for Douglas County Frank Winn. James Womack was a
Speaker 1: supervisor at it in a wake. And I don't mean
Speaker 1: he just supervised kids. He supervised employees as well as kids,
Speaker 1: and he was somebody that it was clear he was
Speaker 1: somewhat close to Petter, but at the same time, it
Speaker 1: appeared there were some kids that he would take off
Speaker 1: in ways that didn't seem appropriate. So as we started investigating,
Speaker 1: we were able to find out that there had been
Speaker 1: some kids that he had isolated and had had relations with.
Speaker 1: I don't remember him being someone that was very friendly,
Speaker 1: you know, he was a little bit more of a
Speaker 1: we felt like a strong arm fellow, James Walmack. I know,
Speaker 1: when we talked about his case, his situation, we just
Speaker 1: felt like he wasn't really Lewis Petter's partner. They weren't
Speaker 1: partners in crime. It was like, well, that's the way
Speaker 1: we can do stuff it and awaking, so I'm gonna
Speaker 1: do it. That was clearly our belief as to who
Speaker 1: James Walmack was. He might do some things for Petter
Speaker 1: because he worked there or because he knew what Petter
Speaker 1: was doing, but what he did seemed to be very
Speaker 1: much on his own because he believed that's what you
Speaker 1: could get away with out there. While trying to find
Speaker 1: a charge that would stick for Petter and other in
Speaker 1: a WEEKI employees, things could get complicated very quickly. Journalist
Speaker 1: Albert Edgin says that the strongest case against Petter and
Speaker 1: others would have been the sodomy law at the time.
Speaker 1: I think it's interesting to look at the criminal case
Speaker 1: from the perspective of the prosecutors. They had a couple
Speaker 1: of challenges, and there was sort of a hierarchy of
Speaker 1: laws that they were dealing with, and Georgia, sodomy was illegal,
Speaker 1: So if they had testimony about a homosexual relationship that
Speaker 1: became physical that involved acts of what words defined in
Speaker 1: the Georgia law as sodomy at the time, then they
Speaker 1: had a slam dunk case. So they were very aggressive
Speaker 1: about going after the sodomy cases. That was the easiest
Speaker 1: thing for me. The next thing is child abuse on
Speaker 1: Georgia's side and child abuse on Florida's side. Now, without
Speaker 1: knowing that the details of how those cases are made
Speaker 1: or what those laws in those two states were like,
Speaker 1: then that means from the prosecutor's point of view that
Speaker 1: what they had to think about was how is this
Speaker 1: going to play out in a courtroom, and they have
Speaker 1: I think three problems. One is they know, well, first
Speaker 1: of all, in Florida, where there is no sodomy law,
Speaker 1: there's no anti sodomy law. If they're dealing with a
Speaker 1: child abuse case, or if they're dealing with a case
Speaker 1: where there's a relationship between a child and an adult,
Speaker 1: the defense is going to say that was a consensual relationship.
Speaker 1: You got to think about it like a prosecutor, like,
Speaker 1: that's gonna be one thing that the defense is going
Speaker 1: to do. The bottom line on that is that the
Speaker 1: easiest cases to make in the cases that they made
Speaker 1: in Georgia on sodomy, and that Florida authorities went along
Speaker 1: with that because they thought, you get this guy in jail,
Speaker 1: we get this guy in jail. Then you have the
Speaker 1: additional challenge of getting the victims to talk about it
Speaker 1: because it's so embarrassing. It's a horrific experience that they
Speaker 1: had and they don't want to talk about in the courtroom.
Speaker 1: So it took a while for them to organize the case.
Speaker 1: They brought their cases against the people they could bring
Speaker 1: them against. The problem that still exists is that Florida
Speaker 1: had a list of Georgia probably did too. But Florida
Speaker 1: had a list of abuse of counselors, which means older
Speaker 1: people adults eighteen or older counselors who had abused kids
Speaker 1: that they didn't prosecute and they couldn't process. Cute. Some
Speaker 1: of them they couldn't find, but they found at least
Speaker 1: one in Tennessee, and he was working at a psychiatric
Speaker 1: treatment center for children. So that was then you have
Speaker 1: to think how many of these people that they didn't
Speaker 1: find are still working in these places now. I asked
Speaker 1: Frank Win if anyone from in Aweki South Campus in Caribelle, Florida,
Speaker 1: or the Girls Campus in rock Mart were charged and convicted.
Speaker 1: I did not participate in any charges. Both places were
Speaker 1: other jurisdictions for one thing, so I wouldn't have been
Speaker 1: involved in whether they were prosecuted or not, other than
Speaker 1: I didn't have anything to prosecute him for in Douglas County.
Speaker 1: I don't recall that there was anything significantly wrong that
Speaker 1: somebody had done that they had gotten prosecuted for in
Speaker 1: either place other than what we were already prosecuting for.
Speaker 1: I mean, Louis better, we know did stuff in Mexico
Speaker 1: and Florida but that doesn't mean we're gonna prosecute him
Speaker 1: for what he did there. And if other people did
Speaker 1: stuff there, those jurisdictions would have had access to whatever
Speaker 1: we had. I do not remember anything specific about criminal
Speaker 1: charges related to any employees at carabell or Rock Market.
Speaker 1: Once you've prosecuted somebody, what's the value of using resources
Speaker 1: to prosecute them again. And if there were a victim slash,
Speaker 1: you know, someone who's been groomed, then do they deserve
Speaker 1: to be prosecuted in another jurisdiction. That's somebody else's call.
Speaker 1: But at the same time I could understand them decide
Speaker 1: and know they shouldn't be prosecuted. I don't really have
Speaker 1: an answer. I don't remember discussing are having contact with
Speaker 1: prosecution authorities from Carabelle or Polpe County along with Petter
Speaker 1: and Jim Wamack, administrator and Petter's son in law, James
Speaker 1: Henry Evans, was arrested as well. Eventually, Lewis's wife, Mabel,
Speaker 1: would also be arrested for failure to report child abuse.
Speaker 1: A little more than two hours ago, a handcuffed Mabel Petter,
Speaker 1: the wife of Annawakey founder Lewis Petter was escorted into
Speaker 1: the Douglas County jail. The sixty seven year old Anawakey
Speaker 1: nursing director has been charged with four counts of failure
Speaker 1: to report child abuse. Tony Say mr Evans. A few
Speaker 1: minutes later, her son in law, former Annawakey administrator and
Speaker 1: acting director, Henry Evans, was taken in handcuffs into the jail,
Speaker 1: charged with twenty three counts of failure to report child abuse.
Speaker 1: Gb I agent Tony Gaily said investigators had to forcibly
Speaker 1: enter evans residence to make the arrest. What we're saying
Speaker 1: is that these incidents has occurred, they should have been
Speaker 1: reported either to the Sheriff's Department of District Attorne his office,
Speaker 1: or the Department of Family and Children's Services. They were not,
Speaker 1: and that's a violation of the law. Walmax was presented
Speaker 1: as a trial where we settled everything except the legal
Speaker 1: issue of the statue limitations. It was just obvious that
Speaker 1: we were had narrowed the whole case down to he
Speaker 1: did it. The question is legally could we prosecuted? And
Speaker 1: so why not just present that to the judge with
Speaker 1: better We had so much more and so we weren't
Speaker 1: gonna be dealing with just one semantic. There was a
Speaker 1: lot more there, with better financially as well as abuses.
Speaker 1: Winds says that while the investigation into the sexual abuse
Speaker 1: charges was ongoing with the documents seized from an Awaki,
Speaker 1: there was now a rico a racketeering case being built
Speaker 1: against the inn a WEEKI organization as well. A racketeering
Speaker 1: case would involve any pattern of illegal activity that is
Speaker 1: carried out by a business which is owned or controlled
Speaker 1: by those engaged in such activity. When we're getting ready
Speaker 1: for trial, my number one focus was on the sexual
Speaker 1: abuse charges and the information related to that that that
Speaker 1: was my focus. At the same time, we had people
Speaker 1: from the Price Unit, Attorney's Council as well as the
Speaker 1: gb I helping us with the case. There were a
Speaker 1: whole lot more adept and knowledgeable about how to analyze
Speaker 1: the financial part of and a weight when we're talking
Speaker 1: about what other charges might have been brought as opposed
Speaker 1: to what we're brought. While we were getting ready for
Speaker 1: a trial, our negotiation incorporated the fact that we were
Speaker 1: investigating other matters that were financial in nature. My memory
Speaker 1: is there's no doubt that they knew about it, no doubt.
Speaker 1: They knew we had a lot of documents, and they
Speaker 1: knew what the documents were that we had. They could
Speaker 1: have assumed that we were idiots and that we didn't
Speaker 1: know what the documents were showing about their activities, or
Speaker 1: they could make the correct assumption that we had people
Speaker 1: from the g b I and from the Prosecuting Attorney's
Speaker 1: Council that understood what they were manipulating in the financial documents.
Speaker 1: So at some point we began crafting a rico indictment.
Speaker 1: Some are all of the lawyers for the bet Our
Speaker 1: family figured that out, And I remember Mr Petter's attorney
Speaker 1: asking me, I need to know if y'all actually got
Speaker 1: a document with names on it and charges related to
Speaker 1: other matters, And I said, we have a reco indictment
Speaker 1: has names of other family members on it, and we
Speaker 1: intended to go forward with that document. Part of what
Speaker 1: they asked was uh, and we agreed to this was
Speaker 1: to drop that aspect of the case. Negotiations had begun
Speaker 1: between the patter's attorneys and the prosecution. Frank explains that
Speaker 1: this was to try and ensure as much as they
Speaker 1: could that the organization behind in Awaki and its financial
Speaker 1: interests would come to an end. I say they asked
Speaker 1: We asked for a lot too. We asked that the
Speaker 1: daughters forfeit everything. I remember thinking that, okay, they're giving
Speaker 1: an Awaki estates completely to the nonprofit. It would look
Speaker 1: like a huge tax donation. So part of our agreement
Speaker 1: was you give up everything you own and end. You
Speaker 1: can't take a tax deduction because it would have been inappropriate.
Speaker 1: It wasn't their property. After over two years of investigation
Speaker 1: and preliminary hearings and agreement between Petter's attorneys and the
Speaker 1: prosecution had been made in April of Petter would enter
Speaker 1: a guilty plea in return for the investigation to drop
Speaker 1: the RICO indictment. Petter pleaded guilty to nineteen counts of
Speaker 1: sodomizing twelve former and a Waki patients, camps number four
Speaker 1: and five, five different different invision of the Africans camps
Speaker 1: undertan and left different India when they're wanting us not
Speaker 1: to go forward with the RICO. At the same time,
Speaker 1: we addressed all the finances. If you read through the
Speaker 1: comprehensive plea agreement, there's a lot of financial information in there.
Speaker 1: That has nothing to do with the sexual abuse charges.
Speaker 1: It had to do with us doing the best we
Speaker 1: could correct what they had stolen. As far as I
Speaker 1: was concerned, they had taken something by manipulation and fraud
Speaker 1: and it was equivalent to stealing. We agreed if Lewis
Speaker 1: Pedderck led guilty on the sex charges and we worked
Speaker 1: out the financial restitution as best we could, then we
Speaker 1: just basically stopped writing the reco indictment. Chuck Olsen, who
Speaker 1: work is the main one that would have been involved
Speaker 1: in it. He was brilliant when it came to details,
Speaker 1: especially in going through finance actual documents and being able
Speaker 1: to craft incidents that would have been part of the
Speaker 1: reco indictment. And we were probably about halfway through with it.
Speaker 1: But it's a lot of information, and Chuck was working
Speaker 1: his butt off trying to organize it and make sure
Speaker 1: that he had it complete. And I don't know if
Speaker 1: Truck was disappointed or not, but I think he was.
Speaker 1: He was based on the financial restitution that we got
Speaker 1: from the agreement. I think he was satisfied that we
Speaker 1: accomplished what needed to be accomplished with in essence stripping
Speaker 1: the family of what everything we could find that they
Speaker 1: had taken from an AWAKEI Ultimately some of the properties
Speaker 1: the Pattern family acquired were given back to the inn
Speaker 1: Awaki Estates Foundation. For other properties in other countries such
Speaker 1: as Canada and Mexico, it was just too far out
Speaker 1: of the reach of Wind's investigation. Did they had some
Speaker 1: cash at the place in Pachuca. Certainly finding that he
Speaker 1: had gone to Mexico, that was something that we had
Speaker 1: wondered about. That's one of the reasons Earl sent some
Speaker 1: officers down there. Other than being able to corroborate kids
Speaker 1: versions of how things were down there, I don't remember
Speaker 1: they were able to really get physical evidence to bring
Speaker 1: back other than photographs and a little bit of real
Speaker 1: estate type of information. Douglas County had a lot of
Speaker 1: expenses in this investigation, as well as the State of Georgia,
Speaker 1: But it was Douglas County's case, an awaki Estates and
Speaker 1: or the family members. Everything that we were we knew
Speaker 1: about except Mexico. We we didn't want to go back
Speaker 1: and mess with any property that was down in Mexico.
Speaker 1: So I don't recall that we did anything with the
Speaker 1: Mexico estate, but everything else that we had was turned
Speaker 1: over to annawaki Ink. As far as the real estate goes,
Speaker 1: there was some stuff that was given to Douglas County.
Speaker 1: There was some about three hundred acres in Canada and
Speaker 1: that was I believe in Lewis Petter's name. That property
Speaker 1: was given to Douglas County. There was a lot of
Speaker 1: jewelry that was given to Douglas County. There was some
Speaker 1: money out of the cash bond, and I remember that
Speaker 1: being a dispute later on as to who got what
Speaker 1: out of the cash bond that was posted. But the
Speaker 1: intent was the cash that came from Petter, we Douglas
Speaker 1: County took some of that money to help defray costs.
Speaker 1: So part of the comprehensive Plea agreement involved them agreeing
Speaker 1: to forfeit those funds to Douglas County. The funds that
Speaker 1: were traced to Petter. My memory was we allowed a
Speaker 1: certain amount for Mabel to keep and then a majority
Speaker 1: of it was forwarded to Douglas County. As far as
Speaker 1: other stuff that was done, I believe the Carabelle property
Speaker 1: was turned over to an awaki Ink. All the property
Speaker 1: in Douglas County that was not otherwise in aniwaki Ink's
Speaker 1: name was supposed to be turned over to them. The
Speaker 1: property in Polk County I believe was an Awakia estates
Speaker 1: and had to be turned over in return for giving
Speaker 1: up almost all of in a week he's financial interest
Speaker 1: and in turn, any control he had over the organization.
Speaker 1: Louis Petter was then sentenced to eight years in prison,
Speaker 1: with an additional twelve years of probation to follow. To
Speaker 1: give a comparison to a known trial from today, nixi
Speaker 1: Um Secret Society founder Keith for Near, who was charged
Speaker 1: with sex trafficking of children and can spiracy to commit
Speaker 1: forced labor, was sentenced to one and twenty years in prison,
Speaker 1: essentially a life sentence. I asked Frank if he believed
Speaker 1: that eight years was really enough of a punishment for
Speaker 1: Petter being a known abuser for over two decades. Well, yes,
Speaker 1: I think it was enough based on the information we
Speaker 1: had at the time. This might sound a little mean,
Speaker 1: but I wasn't sure how long he would survive in prison,
Speaker 1: and so that factored into it also. And when I
Speaker 1: say it may actually sound mean, I didn't think at
Speaker 1: the time he entered the Blue I felt like whatever
Speaker 1: time he was he might not make it eight years.
Speaker 1: If he did make it, he would come out and be,
Speaker 1: you know, very unhealthy. At the end, I felt like
Speaker 1: he was old enough and in bad enough health to
Speaker 1: where eight years was. I think I mentioned earlier it
Speaker 1: was like giving someone else fifteen years. Partly because of
Speaker 1: his health. I think he wound up surprising us and
Speaker 1: living longer than we expected. That would have been his
Speaker 1: side of the negotiation. I guess he figured he knew
Speaker 1: he was in better health than we believed. Do you
Speaker 1: think he put a fast one? No, not necessarily. I
Speaker 1: mean it was based on what we had. It was
Speaker 1: still a fair sentence for the back. At that time,
Speaker 1: sentences weren't as harsh in general as they are nowadays
Speaker 1: when it comes to in kind of sexual abuse, and
Speaker 1: eight years might have been a little bit low. But
Speaker 1: we covered everything and we were able to get the
Speaker 1: family didn't serve as much time as a whole if
Speaker 1: you just added up everybody's sentences. But they gave up
Speaker 1: everything financially that we felt like they should, that we
Speaker 1: think they deserved. While the Douglas County authorities were doing
Speaker 1: all they could to put a stop to the n
Speaker 1: Waki organization under Louis Petter. Another group of former victims
Speaker 1: had begun to file a civil suit against Petter and
Speaker 1: an Awake. When I was practicing law, I had some
Speaker 1: neighbors who walked into my office or former neighbors, and
Speaker 1: they had a son about Awaky treatment center and the
Speaker 1: able suspicious of the seby nine thousand dollar bill that
Speaker 1: they had received. So we discussed and I told them
Speaker 1: I would look into it. But before I could really
Speaker 1: look into it, nice food my clients for it on payment.
Speaker 1: This is Pat Edelkind. She's one of the two main
Speaker 1: attorneys who handled the civil suit against dan Awaki. Pat's
Speaker 1: career is an impressive one. Aside from her involvement in
Speaker 1: the Anna Waki case, she was the first single mother
Speaker 1: to ever graduate from Harvard Law School. Not only that
Speaker 1: I had graduatingd I was so fearful we'll not being
Speaker 1: able to pick up after ten years that I worked
Speaker 1: extra hard I suppose, and I graduated h well Victorian
Speaker 1: and my class, first in my class. It seems her
Speaker 1: story is similar to Frank Winn and Earl Lee's and
Speaker 1: that one small issue ended up snowballing and is something
Speaker 1: bigger than she ever could have imagined. I've heard about
Speaker 1: it waking since I was looking for a place to
Speaker 1: put my youngest son, who had learning just about with this,
Speaker 1: to try and get a hold of that when he
Speaker 1: was young, and he was around eleven, and stopped him
Speaker 1: from some of the behaviors that he was exhibiting. When
Speaker 1: I was searching for a place, I came upon an
Speaker 1: Awaki which seemed to be ideal. And when I talked
Speaker 1: to Mark, my son about him, and he wasn't happy
Speaker 1: about it, but he wasn't unhappy either, so he tried
Speaker 1: it and it seemed to work out fairly well initially.
Speaker 1: Shortly after Pat entered her son into Annawaki, she began
Speaker 1: to hear some things that made her question the program.
Speaker 1: She eventually decided to remove her son. He wasn't really
Speaker 1: making the progress that I thought he should have been making,
Speaker 1: and I was a little suspicious of the place. Also
Speaker 1: of my spot had picked up grammatical error in his speech,
Speaker 1: and also he he just wasn't thriving. He told me
Speaker 1: that they will work all the time, and that they
Speaker 1: will shortened therapy sessions with the psychiatry. In fact, the
Speaker 1: psychiatrist was legally blond and that they had very short
Speaker 1: session with Father Keim there if that usually more like
Speaker 1: five all both the charge was for the futtle hour.
Speaker 1: Now this really bothered me, and I didn't watch him
Speaker 1: just working out in the cold and the element all
Speaker 1: the time he was there. So I'm vocational lethy I
Speaker 1: thought would be good, but not that much. It just
Speaker 1: got to be at bit much, so I removed him.
Speaker 1: It's around the same time that Pat decided in a
Speaker 1: weak he was not for her son. When her neighbors
Speaker 1: came to her with their financial complaint against the center.
Speaker 1: What would happen to them is that they had their
Speaker 1: child at home with them, but he was paying charged
Speaker 1: for our visits when they were like five of sin
Speaker 1: with the psychiatrist and all those kinds of things. And
Speaker 1: he would tell them that things were going on, and
Speaker 1: my son told me also, but it wasn't as a stage,
Speaker 1: and that my son had said that they heard that
Speaker 1: d Heater, who was ahead of the ansgestion could go
Speaker 1: gay on you, and they were beating It didn't add
Speaker 1: up to what they said it was going to be.
Speaker 1: One of the things that really got attention of black
Speaker 1: form of neighbors is the fact that they were paying
Speaker 1: out of pocket. They didn't have a hospital or insurance
Speaker 1: and things like that that would have picked up this bill.
Speaker 1: So they were attuned of what was charged. Most of
Speaker 1: the parents so has either the school system, but not
Speaker 1: really the school system so much as individual insurance that
Speaker 1: would pay it as a health see. Pat would soon
Speaker 1: find out the social workers who worked for an Awaki
Speaker 1: would refute any allegations from patients. The social worker, who
Speaker 1: is person that parents talked to, would hear all the
Speaker 1: stuff that the children would say, but then she would say, oh, no,
Speaker 1: that wasn't so, and all of the social workers did that,
Speaker 1: and the social workers was killed. The parents that you
Speaker 1: can't believe what's your son tells you or order because
Speaker 1: they are a big step to begin with, and that's
Speaker 1: why they came here. They just want to go home
Speaker 1: and astra a while. That just did not wash. The
Speaker 1: social worker would say, oh, that didn't happen, or that
Speaker 1: didn't happen. The parents might have gone said, look, he
Speaker 1: said he didn't have the arpy, or he said that
Speaker 1: he didn't get educated, or whenever they were supposed to do,
Speaker 1: they were not doing. All the child was doing was
Speaker 1: laboring to build the house, whether his head was roof,
Speaker 1: and all of the social workers would deny an abuse whatsoever,
Speaker 1: But these children were getting abused. There was one that
Speaker 1: would beating so badly and knocked into the wall then
Speaker 1: it broke his ear drum. Not with appalling. Pat would
Speaker 1: initially foul a counter suit on behalf of her neighbors
Speaker 1: who had been sued by Anawaki for back payment. The
Speaker 1: civil suit would soon come to cover an umbrella of
Speaker 1: charges against an Awaki. I first filed on their behalf.
Speaker 1: I filed accountter plane and spent awake to hit sis them.
Speaker 1: I could see them back, and I did, and I
Speaker 1: alleged frog moult practice violations of RICO and also physical abuse.
Speaker 1: That's suxual abuse. And of course an't wait to deny that.
Speaker 1: But as a matter of fact, other hear I started
Speaker 1: coming to me because they did word well. And then
Speaker 1: I associated with Randall Blackwood that he would handle trial
Speaker 1: work and I would take care of all the plain
Speaker 1: of some of the depositions that those kind of thing,
Speaker 1: which it was a lot of things that handled because
Speaker 1: eventually we had one underd and thirty one wanted in
Speaker 1: separate lawses. These were individual lawsses. However, they were tried
Speaker 1: in multip pursuits. I think we had about eight. PAD
Speaker 1: would work side by side with well known attorney Randall
Speaker 1: Blackwood and his wife Florence, assisting in handling all of
Speaker 1: the documents as well. With such a large case, PAD
Speaker 1: would need reinforcements. Randall Blackwood was a renowned trial lawyer
Speaker 1: and I was just one person, so I needed someone
Speaker 1: who was really excellent exact so I associated with him
Speaker 1: and we ended up splitting the sea. I did a
Speaker 1: lot of the paper work, most of it, but Randy
Speaker 1: did the trials and I helped, of course, but he
Speaker 1: was the presence in the courtroom. And we had one
Speaker 1: judge assigned to ostin Hooly, Judge Jack Frich And he
Speaker 1: was actually very good too, because there was such a
Speaker 1: massive paper that we did one dedicated judge just to
Speaker 1: keep it straight. Here's Judge Jack Etheridge remembering the circumstances
Speaker 1: involving the trial. This is taken from a video clip
Speaker 1: thanks to the Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research
Speaker 1: and Studies at the University of Georgia. Another case I
Speaker 1: remember quite well was called the Anawaki case. One lawyer
Speaker 1: essentially took over the claims of all of these people,
Speaker 1: and there was more than guess and it was just
Speaker 1: too complex a case to ask any sitting judge to handle,
Speaker 1: and so I was asked to take own aces and
Speaker 1: did and we took maybe a year or two to
Speaker 1: deal with all the preliminary motion a lot at stake
Speaker 1: and uh at the end, I was able to segregate
Speaker 1: about ten young men as the plaintiffs against a few
Speaker 1: of the defendants, and then we were gonna try the
Speaker 1: other cases incrementally as we've been along. We set up
Speaker 1: a separate courtroom. We built courtroom for that trial and
Speaker 1: it was tried over a period of I think ten weeks.
Speaker 1: In order to be able to go into trial at
Speaker 1: any time, they used a former Riches department store to
Speaker 1: make an ad hoc courtroom. Yeah, Riches department store had closed,
Speaker 1: but in the part department store we had a courtroom
Speaker 1: built so that the much would litigate the cases. We
Speaker 1: could adate the cases and get them thuttled and have
Speaker 1: the access. It is the time, So that's what Judge
Speaker 1: jack Etheridge healthy hearings. After we had putting the money
Speaker 1: into making a court room and we uh tried the
Speaker 1: one case that went to trial. Papled work in tandem
Speaker 1: with Frank Wynn and Douglas County authorities by sharing their findings.
Speaker 1: They would help each other with their cases. The District
Speaker 1: Attorney of Douglas County where the institutions were it was
Speaker 1: Fright wyn And at the time there has been a
Speaker 1: case of cases where people had gone to Mr Wynn
Speaker 1: that have complained about sexual abuse and battering and those
Speaker 1: kinds of things, and so he's looking into it. So
Speaker 1: I shared my knowledge with him, and he kept other
Speaker 1: placest to me and that's how it got so many.
Speaker 1: But something needed to be done about. Sarah Tillis would
Speaker 1: also have a hand in making sure these civil proceedings
Speaker 1: did all they could to take Petter down. Journalist Albert
Speaker 1: Egen says that her diligent notes kept during her last
Speaker 1: few years as a board member greatly helped the case.
Speaker 1: Four people involved in developing the narrative of the civil case,
Speaker 1: which dealt with an awakes management and the deterioration of
Speaker 1: Lewis Petter's control. Those four people were Sarah Tillis, patal Kind,
Speaker 1: Randy Blackwood, and Randy's wife Florence and those documentations that
Speaker 1: shows how Sarah Tillis went through weeks and weeks and
Speaker 1: weeks of recounting what she had experienced day to day,
Speaker 1: keeping notes, collating notes, and finally what emerged was a
Speaker 1: narrative of the way the place fell apart, and Sarah
Speaker 1: was at the core of that. Sarah Tillis's experience with that,
Speaker 1: Sarah Tillis's determination and uh fortitude was what really really,
Speaker 1: in the end of the day, exposed everything. Randy Blackwood
Speaker 1: was just a bulldog of a lawyer, A really nice guy,
Speaker 1: a little guy, kind of slightly built, but man, he
Speaker 1: was tough and he was pissed. He took this personally.
Speaker 1: Randy was meticulous in his research, but Randy was screwed
Speaker 1: and manipulative. Randy told me a lot of things through
Speaker 1: the course and working on the story. There was a
Speaker 1: point in time when I was pulling all those documents
Speaker 1: from the state archives that showed the hospital licensure manipulation
Speaker 1: between Parmam and Petro and also showed the long term
Speaker 1: relationship between Parma and Petro. Albert says that he too,
Speaker 1: would share documents from his covering of the Nawaki story.
Speaker 1: All of these factors would help paint the picture of
Speaker 1: how bad in Awaki had gotten. Randy had a good case.
Speaker 1: But when I brought that material to him and showed
Speaker 1: him what I had found and asked him about it,
Speaker 1: then he and Florence decided that Florence would go back
Speaker 1: and do the same research I had done, so they
Speaker 1: would have it independently of me. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: Randy and I developed a I would call it a partnership,
Speaker 1: even because I was working on the story and he
Speaker 1: was working on the case, and at the end of
Speaker 1: the day we were working on the same thing, so
Speaker 1: we became friends. And um, you know. He was very
Speaker 1: helpful to me in that he would leak things to me,
Speaker 1: he would give me in formation, he would guide me
Speaker 1: towards things that he was working on. But at the
Speaker 1: same time, his goal was to do two things. One
Speaker 1: was too in the public's eye to turn Petter into
Speaker 1: into a demon, which was not difficult to do, but
Speaker 1: Randy was determined to do it. That's what he was
Speaker 1: doing with a whole range of reporters and people in
Speaker 1: the public eye. So his goal was not just to
Speaker 1: to collect the information and to help the you know,
Speaker 1: the children that had been abused. But from a strategic,
Speaker 1: from a tactical point of view, his goal was to
Speaker 1: make sure that by the time he got this litigation
Speaker 1: to court that there was going to be a very
Speaker 1: very negative view of Anawaki and Petter in the public's eye,
Speaker 1: and he succeeded. Taking on a year's long case can
Speaker 1: often be personally and financially taxing to the council's involved.
Speaker 1: This was especially true for Randall Blackwood and Pat edel Kind.
Speaker 1: My understanding is that Sarah Tillison her husband, helped fund
Speaker 1: the litigation. Randy and Florence I know they had to
Speaker 1: borrow money along the way. At the end of the day,
Speaker 1: they were so certain of the outcome that they were
Speaker 1: willing to financially risk what they had to risk. All
Speaker 1: of the lawsuits from financed by myself and Randy Berkley.
Speaker 1: So there came a time when a very heavy load
Speaker 1: to carry, but we did. However, I came close to bankruptcy,
Speaker 1: and I believe Randy did also. I was fearful of
Speaker 1: losing my house. We were, although we plowed plenty of
Speaker 1: money in it and took out roans, it got to
Speaker 1: be pretty frightening. When it came trying to pay the piper,
Speaker 1: I just despised them. I have been personally moved, but
Speaker 1: also legally it was for render. We thought, having in
Speaker 1: this stitution paid it a hospital, to be such shut
Speaker 1: desticable place and to do absolutely the contrary of what
Speaker 1: they should have done. The supern holes should have been
Speaker 1: talked to the NAT school. They weren't being taught either.
Speaker 1: They were there to be helped, and they weren't. That's
Speaker 1: the sad truth of it. In fact, they were harmed.
Speaker 1: Pattel Kind was attempting to take down a million dollar operation,
Speaker 1: one involving political figures, a board of trustees, and the
Speaker 1: whole staff of upper management. Handling a suit like this
Speaker 1: is something that can certainly make you a target. Pat
Speaker 1: says it is during her involvement in the civil suit
Speaker 1: that she believes someone from the Anawaki organization may have
Speaker 1: tried to harm or even kill her. I was leaving
Speaker 1: warning sized Virginia Higla's area and I was on I
Speaker 1: eighty five going north and my car suddling when I
Speaker 1: was controlled and hit the divide a wall and rolled
Speaker 1: in front of three lanes of traffic, which I luckily survived.
Speaker 1: I broke in my hid in the crash. She believed
Speaker 1: that this was no accident, but that someone had knowingly
Speaker 1: tampered with her car in an attempt to hurt her. Well,
Speaker 1: my car, which had been parked on the street at
Speaker 1: that occasion, was tampered with, and when our control on
Speaker 1: I five rolled across three lanes of traffic, I was
Speaker 1: fortunate to survive, and it was a new car, so
Speaker 1: I thought, what on earth? And then I received us
Speaker 1: to call from a psychologist formerly went that awaking, who
Speaker 1: didn't get me his name, but what he said, I'll
Speaker 1: never forget it was chilly. He said, this is what
Speaker 1: Louis Petter raise his lackeys to do, is to do
Speaker 1: go the tricks on people, to try and hilpe them.
Speaker 1: She thinks they're hurrying him. By November seven, nine women
Speaker 1: had to come forward to sue in Awaki on counts
Speaker 1: of racketeering, conspiring to abuse them, and attempting to defraud
Speaker 1: them financially. Just a few weeks later, the case would
Speaker 1: grow to twenty two former patients suing the center, naming Petter,
Speaker 1: Jim Parham and other board members as defendants. Once again,
Speaker 1: one of the hardest things was attempting to get victims
Speaker 1: to come forward to speak in court. Mark Barber remembers
Speaker 1: his reaction when first finding out about the suit. We
Speaker 1: first heard about the lawsuit, and I guess it was
Speaker 1: a class action lawsuit. My mom got some paperwork in
Speaker 1: the mail and I want to say eight somewhere around there,
Speaker 1: and my mom asking me, do you want to talk
Speaker 1: to anybody about this? And at this time I had
Speaker 1: my film full of counselors and therapists and psychologists, and
Speaker 1: I really didn't want to speak to anybody about anything anymore. Um.
Speaker 1: But I got to a point where I just kind
Speaker 1: of shoveled it real eep and just told my mom
Speaker 1: I didn't have anything to say. Nothing really happened to me.
Speaker 1: I don't want to talk about it. Pat Edelkind says
Speaker 1: that trying to get the younger patients to admit to
Speaker 1: the sexual abuse was very challenging. Fortunately, some older former
Speaker 1: patients would be willing to come forward well. The other
Speaker 1: ones would admit to the battery and physical abuse, never
Speaker 1: the sexual abuse. But we eventually learned to put on
Speaker 1: the older ones that were more comfortable with talking about
Speaker 1: what happened. Even though the satural limitations has asked, they
Speaker 1: were able to tell what happened in the sexual abuse
Speaker 1: and it was pretty astalding. One key witness that agreed
Speaker 1: to come forward in the civil suit was one of
Speaker 1: the earliest instances of Petter's abuse. Bob Camp. Camp had
Speaker 1: been one of Petter's victims during the trial, actually living
Speaker 1: with him while the trial happened. Journalist Albert Edgin was
Speaker 1: able to speak with Camp at length during his time
Speaker 1: covering the Antawakey story. Bob Camp was a troubled young
Speaker 1: man who was treated at anawakey whom Petter lured into
Speaker 1: a sexual relationship. Petter had him stay in his home.
Speaker 1: Petter went to Mexico with him. Petter made him into
Speaker 1: a counselor. Petter uh detigrated Bob Camp's father, who was
Speaker 1: an alcoholic, and brought Bob's mother into his confidence. Bob
Speaker 1: Camp was a vulnerable person whom Petter exploited. Bob was
Speaker 1: a really a brilliant man, but severely troubled in his youth.
Speaker 1: But he was smart about dealing with his troubles. He
Speaker 1: knew he was troubled. His behavior would range from being
Speaker 1: emotionally out of control to being very, very determined to
Speaker 1: analyze his own behavior into and to deal with it.
Speaker 1: Randy Blackwood told me about Bob Camp and said that
Speaker 1: his story was the clearest case of abuse that Randy
Speaker 1: intended to use in his litigation, but Bob understandably was
Speaker 1: hesitant to talk. Uh. Randy Blackwood's first job was to
Speaker 1: persuade Bob to talk in a courtroom, but before that,
Speaker 1: because as I said, part of randy strategy was public
Speaker 1: vilification and getting this story out before the case came
Speaker 1: to trial, Randy wanted me to talk to Bob. Bob
Speaker 1: wouldn't talk to me, but finally Randy persuaded him too,
Speaker 1: and I had a long conversation with Bob Camp, who
Speaker 1: told me his whole life story, including the abuse by
Speaker 1: Louis Petter, sitting in a truck in the parking lot
Speaker 1: outside the Decab County Courthouse in Decatur, Georgia. And among
Speaker 1: the things he told me was that he was so
Speaker 1: troubled at the time he was in his thirties, that
Speaker 1: he had had such a rough time that he didn't
Speaker 1: have any male friends his age. He was a basketball fan,
Speaker 1: and he didn't even have somebody that he could go
Speaker 1: to see an Atlanta Hawks game with. And it was
Speaker 1: an emotional moment for me, certainly for him to hear
Speaker 1: that that was the depths to which Louis Petter had
Speaker 1: driven some of the children that he should have been helping.
Speaker 1: At that point, I decided that I was going to
Speaker 1: do everything I could to take Louis Petter's story, make
Speaker 1: it public, and take him out. You'd have to have
Speaker 1: been sitting in that truck and listen to that man,
Speaker 1: this thirty year old man whose life had been destroyed,
Speaker 1: who had been manipulated, and he knew it. He The
Speaker 1: thing about Bob Campus that he's so damned smart and
Speaker 1: so analytical that he knew what had happened to him.
Speaker 1: And Bob has written and really a very clear headed
Speaker 1: and honest account of the whole deteriorating relationship between him
Speaker 1: and Petter, and which he documents that he documents how
Speaker 1: Petter did it. But the thing about the documentation is
Speaker 1: not that what's stunning is not the narrative. What stunning
Speaker 1: is Bob Camp's analysis of the narrative, which is built
Speaker 1: into that piece that he wrote. He actually knows what
Speaker 1: happened to him. He's able to analyze it as it's happening,
Speaker 1: and he can't do anything about it because he is
Speaker 1: so troubled. Because the reason he's in an awake he
Speaker 1: is to take care of that, but instead that is
Speaker 1: is exponentially made worse by this guy who is a
Speaker 1: real estate salesman. Bob Camp would write a sixty seven
Speaker 1: page essay detailing his abuse by Petter's hands. It would
Speaker 1: trace his first instance of moles station during his first
Speaker 1: interview with Petter, to living in Petter's house for years,
Speaker 1: to eventually committing himself to psychotherapy and realizing the manipulation
Speaker 1: he had been subjected to for so many years. The
Speaker 1: analysis is the most amazing part of it because Bob says,
Speaker 1: and this is in retrospect, but he had to have
Speaker 1: been than having these thoughts along the way. One of
Speaker 1: the things that comes through is Bob has stunned at
Speaker 1: how much control Petter has over him. But he's able
Speaker 1: to say, here's how he got it. He knows how
Speaker 1: Petter controlled him, but he can't stop it. When Petter
Speaker 1: was going through this investigation that Ren and Dagostino precipitated,
Speaker 1: Bob Camp was living with Petter in his home. Petter
Speaker 1: had such control over Bob Camp at the time that
Speaker 1: the person that probably could have been the best witness
Speaker 1: for the Dagastino ren accusations was under Louis Petter's thumb,
Speaker 1: and it took him another fifteen years to get out
Speaker 1: from under his thumb. He was a child at the time,
Speaker 1: he was a teenager. Bob was such an honest guy
Speaker 1: and so determined to get better that he checked himself
Speaker 1: into Georgia Regional Hospital for six months voluntarily because he
Speaker 1: wanted to help himself. He had had a downturn and
Speaker 1: he wanted to help himself. Now significantly, he didn't check
Speaker 1: himself into an awaking He goes to Georgia Regional and
Speaker 1: he gets good treatment there. He gets he's got good people,
Speaker 1: professionals who are dealing with his troubles, and he tells
Speaker 1: them all about it, and there's a blow by blow
Speaker 1: account of what happened to him there, and one of
Speaker 1: the things that happens. Of course, as the counselors there
Speaker 1: began to learn about his relationship with Louis Patter, so
Speaker 1: they bring Patter in and Petter admits all of this
Speaker 1: to Bob and yet in his meeting with Bob and
Speaker 1: Bob's mother, he tries to manipulate Bob. Still at that point,
Speaker 1: in a document from Bob Camp's therapy, he had managed
Speaker 1: to get Louis Petter to admit to his years of abuse.
Speaker 1: Petter had been so certain that this document would never
Speaker 1: see the light of day that he spoke openly of
Speaker 1: his manipulation and sexual acts with the then minor. Bob
Speaker 1: Camp managed to get copies of his records and shared
Speaker 1: those with Albert years later. Lewis Petter at that time
Speaker 1: apparently reassured himself that because this was a confidential meeting
Speaker 1: in a psychiatric treatment program facility, that this will never
Speaker 1: come up. So he was, for once in his life,
Speaker 1: he was honest and forthright, although still manipulative. He was
Speaker 1: honest to the degree that he admitted that he had
Speaker 1: had this relationship with with Bob Camp. When he didn't
Speaker 1: count on it was that eventually Bob would get well
Speaker 1: enough to make it public, that he would be able
Speaker 1: to be strong enough to handle that pet Her underestimated
Speaker 1: Bob Camp. Bob eventually became probably the the headliner litigant.
Speaker 1: He was the guy that Randy and Pat used as
Speaker 1: the example of the whole Earth manipulation. Bob Camp was
Speaker 1: important to the litigation because his story was the clearest,
Speaker 1: the oldest, the most persistent, and really the most horrible
Speaker 1: of all, and he was willing to talk about it.
Speaker 1: He had the courage to stand up and say this
Speaker 1: happened to me. He had a lot of support and
Speaker 1: I never met his wife, but man, I have a
Speaker 1: good impression of her because one of the things that
Speaker 1: he told me repeatedly was that she was supportive, and
Speaker 1: she didn't have to be supportive. You know, that was
Speaker 1: a horrific situation that she found herself in and she's
Speaker 1: stuck with that guy. The civil suit against Petter had
Speaker 1: ballooned to involve over one and ten patients from Anna
Speaker 1: Waki due to Bob Camp's testimony. Had edel Kind and
Speaker 1: Randy Blackwood would have basically a spoken confession by Petter
Speaker 1: in one case of his abuse. With the civil trial
Speaker 1: going on upboards of three years or more, Blackwood and
Speaker 1: edel Kind were struggling financially to try and keep the
Speaker 1: trial going an attempt to bring some type of justice
Speaker 1: to the victims of Lewis Petter and Company. Next time
Speaker 1: on the conclusion to Camp Help in Awaking. It gave
Speaker 1: him something to start on, move to recuperate, but haven't
Speaker 1: lived what I lived through. No one will trade money
Speaker 1: for that. I still live with survivors guilt. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that'll ever leave me. It has absolutely changed
Speaker 1: my life. It changed my body. I'm hoping that by
Speaker 1: doing this podcast that it will bring me some closer.
Speaker 1: The most troubling thing to me is that there are
Speaker 1: still people who were abusing Patience in any way. He
Speaker 1: who are in the health care systems around the site.
Speaker 1: He hurts so many people. I felt like the balance
Speaker 1: between good and evil on this planet shifted. M Camp
Speaker 1: Hell an Awake was created and hosted by Josh Thane,
Speaker 1: with producer Miranda Hawkins and executive producers Alex Williams and
Speaker 1: Matt Frederick. The soundtrack was written and performed by Josh
Speaker 1: Thane and Adrian Barry. Archival footage provided by ws B
Speaker 1: and CBS News. Find us on Instagram at Camp Hell Pod.
Speaker 1: That's c A M p h E l l p O. D.
Speaker 1: Educate yourself about the issue of child abuse and things
Speaker 1: that you should look for at the Darkness to Light website.
Speaker 1: D two well dot org. That's d the number two
Speaker 1: l dot org camp hell an Awake is a production
Speaker 1: of I heart Radio. For more podcasts for my heart Radio,
Speaker 1: visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
Speaker 1: you listen to podcasts.