Kreider Lets St Patrick Interparish Molester off With Time Served After Kramer Drops Several Cases
Judge David Kreider has accepted St Patrick Interparish Catholic School child molester Christopher Chell’s plea deal petition and sentenced him to five years probation with time served.
Chell offered to plead no contest in exchange for a withheld adjudication; meaning, he did not admit innocence or guilt, and Kreider didn't convict him.
Kreider sentenced Chell to six months in jail but he walked out of the court a free man due to already spending six months in jail as his trial was ongoing.
State Attorney Brian Kramer dropped several cases against Chell.
This came after Kramer dropped the charges against St Patrick Interparish Assistant Principal Ryan Clemens who was arrested for concealing evidence for Chell.
The following are summaries of Chell’s cases based on the information currently available on the court records website:
Case 1: Ten counts of molestation against a victim between 12-16 | Dropped/Abandoned
The sworn complaint in this case by Gainesville Police Department Officer Desiree Russano reads:
"[Chell], a 46 year old man, has been employed at St. Patrick Interparish School for approximately 4 and a half years. [Chell] was first employed as a middle school history teacher. Approximately 18 months ago he became the ‘Athletic Director.’ In other words [Chell] was the middle school P.E. teacher at St. Patrick Interparish School….until his employment was terminated on February 28, 2024.
On February 20, 2024, S.S., a female 7th grader at [the school] reported to the Assistant Principal (Acting Principal), [Ryan Clemens], that [Chell], while in his role as P.E. teacher made inappropriate comments to S.S. that made her uncomfortable. Specifically, [Chell] told SS that he could be [her] ‘secret boyfriend’ but that they ([Chell] and S.S.) would have to keep it a secret.
[Clemens] conducted an investigation into S.S. 's report of inappropriate behavior on the part of [Chell]. The investigation consisted of [Clemens] questioning [Chell], [Chell] denying to [Clemens] that he told S.S. he could be her ‘secret boyfriend’ and [Clemens] facilitating a phone call between [Chell] and S.S.'s parent where [Chell] denied that he made such a statement again. [Clemens] learned, not long after S.S.'s report, from several teachers and adult staff members, that [Chell] had shared with them that he did, in fact, tell S.S. he could be her secret boyfriend but that he was ‘kidding.’ [Chell] remained in his position as middle school P.E. teacher without any changes to his employment, his role or his interaction with and access to students, specifically, female students.
S.S, was removed from the school by her parent (s) and the students soon began to talk about [her] report.
[Clemens] was approached by 3 female 6th graders who requested a meeting with him. During this meeting the 3 female 6th graders disclosed that [Chell] had engaged in a pattern of inappropriate behavior with all three of them ranging from inappropriate statements that made them uncomfortable to inappropriate touching while hugging them.
The girls also reported that, among other things, [Chell] began to say ‘I love you’ to them in a way that each of them, independently of one another, regarded as uncomfortable and even ‘weird.’ [Clemens] expressed to Affiant that [Chell] had a reputation at the school for favoring the middle school girls; [saying] ‘Looking back he did have a lot of favorites that were girls- always 6th, 7th, 8th grade girls would visit him. During class, between classes.’ [Clemens] expressed an awareness of the fact that [Chell] hugged the female students, the ones he considered his ‘Favorites.’
[Clemens] recalled to Affiant that after S.S’s report but before the 3 female 6th graders approached him he had received a report from an adult staff member who stated she was concerned with the way [Chell] was staring at a female student from the hallway through a window during standardized testing. The staff member stated she even tried to block [Chell]’s view of the female student, however, a fixated [Chell], repositioned himself to maintain the female student in his sight….
The victim recalled the first time [Chell] said ‘I love you’ to her she was taken aback and thought that it was ‘weird. ’ However, as time went on she learned to say it back to him and grew to not have a problem with it at all.
VIC also said that if she didn't say ‘I love you’ back to [Chell] he would get ‘upset’ or even ‘mad’ until she did say it. [Chell] exhibited the same type of ‘upset’ response when VIC would not visit him in between classes or after class.
VIC, without thinking or hesitation, described her association with her P.E. teacher, [Chell], as a ‘relationship’ and referred to the two of them as ‘unseparable’ and having a ‘bond’ due to how much personal information they shared with each other
VIC disclosed that [Chell] not only said ‘I love you’ to her but he also turned hugging into an everyday expectation.
VIC explained that she and [Chell] exchanged hugs at least once a day every day since approximately September of 2023. [Chell] would get upset if he believed VIC was not going to hug him and said things to VIC such as, ‘What? I don't get a hug?’
VIC and [Chell] gave each other ‘side hugs’ where their hips touched rather than the front of their bodies. [Chell] used the arm closest to VIC to embrace her with. At first, [Chell] would place his hand ‘very low, like, very, very low’ on VIC's back. Although at first VIC believed the position of [Chell]'s hand to be accidental, it became evident that it' was intentional over time, Eventually, [Chell] placed his entire hand onto VIC's buttocks and would keep his hand there, touching VIC's buttocks (over her clothing) until the two disengaged from the hug. There were instances where [Chell] used his hand to rub up and down VIC’s arm repeatedly, making her uncomfortable. VIC estimated that it was mid to late January 2024 when [Chell] began to use his entire hand to touch VIC's buttocks in a way that was obviously intentional. VIC also recalled an incident where [Chell] grabbed a hold of her skirt with his hand and was yanking at it and pulling her while he yanked on it. This alarmed the VIC.
VIC said that [Chell] would also ‘brush’ against her breast as he hugged her. What at first seemed possibly accidental became an everyday occurrence; [Chell] placing his hand further and further onto VIC's breast when hugging her. Around the same time, mid to late January 2024, [Chell] began to use his ‘entire hand’ to ‘grab’ and ‘squeeze’ VIC's ‘entire breast’ in a way that VIC described as causing her physical pain and ‘hurting.’ Not only did [Chell]'s actions cause VIC physical pain, but she acknowledged that such touching was inappropriate and should not be occurring. VIC described that she and [Chell] exchanged a hug at least once every school day since approximately September, 2023.
At times, they hugged several times a day. With every hug, [Chell] touched VIC on her buttocks and/or her breast. VIC recalled that out of all the hugs she shared with [Chell] it was possible that ‘maybe 5’ of those hugs did not include or involve the inappropriate and unlawful touching of VIC's buttocks and or breast (over her clothing) by [Chell].
VIC, a 12 year old child, recalled that [Chell], her P.E. teacher and Coach, had made statements to her about controlling her athletic career and, moreover, her scholastic career. VIC explained that this led her to believe that [Chell] had a significant amount of control over VIC given his position of power as her teacher and her coach.
[Chell] engaged in a pattern of behavior beginning in approximately September of 2023 where he would hug the VIC and use his hand to touch her breast and/or buttocks inappropriately and intentionally. [Chell]'s inappropriate touching of VIC's breast (s) and/or buttocks escalated as the months progressed; [Chell] would place more of his hand on VIC's breast (s) and/or buttocks, DEP would leave his hand on VIC's breast (s) and/or buttocks for longer periods of time, [Chell] then began to grab and then squeeze VIC's breast (s) and/or buttocks to the point of causing physical pain to the VIC.
Affiant attempted to meet with [Chell] on 3/6/2024. Affiant and [Chell] spoke by phone and, [Chell] stated affirmatively that he would respond immediately to the Gainesville Police
Department to discuss statements made at [St Patrick Interparish]. Two hours later, Affiant attempted to reached [Chell] and was unable to do so, having only the option to leave a voicemail. As of this writing, [Chell] has not responded to GPD and has not returned Affiant's call (s). "
Kramer dropped the charges in this case on July 17.
Case 2: One count of engaging in lewd conduct as an authority figure. One count of molestation against a victim between 12-16. | Dropped/Abandoned.
The sworn complaint on this case is not currently available.
Kramer dropped the case on June 7.
Case 3: Two counts of engaging in lewd conduct as an authority figure. | Dropped/Abandoned.
The sworn complaint on this case is not currently available.
Kramer dropped the case on August 26.
Case 4: One count of solicitation or engaging in a romantic relationship as an authority figure. One count of child cruelty without great bodily harm. | Withheld adjudication & No action.
The sworn complaint on this case is not currently available.
Kramer didn’t prosecute Chell’s child cruelty charge in this case.
Judge Kreider accepted a plea deal for Chell on his solicitation charge where he was granted a withheld adjudication and probation with time served.
Case 5: One count of battery with a prior battery conviction. One count of engaging in lewd conduct as an authority figure. One count of molesting a victim older than 12 and younger than 16. | Withheld adjudication & nolle prosequi x2.
The sworn complaint on this case is not currently available.
Kramer dropped Chell’s molestation and lewd conduct charges in this case.
Judge Kreider granted Chell a withheld adjudication for his battery with a prior battery conviction charge as part of the aforementioned plea deal.
Case 6: One count of engaging in lewd conduct as an authority figure. | Dropped/Abandoned.
The sworn complaint with details on this case is not currently available.
Kramer dropped the case on August 26.
Case 0: Chell was still hired by St Patrick Interparish despite being arrested for battery in 2000. Chell pleaded no contest in exchange for a withheld adjudication.
Chell's plea deal also includes relinquishing his teaching certifications, not contacting two of the victims, and taking a psycho-sexual evaluation followed by recommended treatment.
