<p>The mother of the alleged rapist says: 'I teach school and I teach people in my class, you treat people the way you want to be treated."</p>
<p>Even if we believe that the sex was consensual, we are left to assume that her son wants to be left outside overnight, unconscious and underdressed in freezing weather?</p>
<p>People naturally have a hard time believing and then accepting the worst about their family. </p>
<p>A good (but sad) example of a man rising to the occasion is Jerry Remy, the beloved Red Sox broadcaster (and former second baseman). He’s known generally as “Remdog”. His son Jared attacked and stabbed the mother of their little girl to death in front of people - who tried to pull him off her. Remdog, who has lost time over the past few years for cancer treatments, said that though Jared was his son this was inexcusable and that, in essence, he would not be standing with his son. He took the rest of the season off from broadcasting. </p>
<p>It’s hard. This is your kid doing bad things. You have to deal with that at so many levels: was it me? could I have done something to make him that way? and so on. Even the bluntest question of recognizing that yes this happened is hard.</p>
<p>[I’m</a> Daisy Coleman, The Teenager At The Center Of The Maryville Rape Media Storm, And This Is What Really Happened | xoJane](<a href=“http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/daisy-coleman-maryville-rape]I’m”>http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/daisy-coleman-maryville-rape)</p>
<p>It’s weird that Matt Barnett’s mother spoke at the prosecutor’s press conference.</p>
<p>[Matt</a> Barnett?s Mother Makes Unexpected Appearance at Bob Rice Press Conference (Video) | The Torch](<a href=“TheMissouriTorch.com”>TheMissouriTorch.com)</p>
<p>Wow, Class2012Mom. I love what she wrote, and how she presented it. Good for her.</p>
<p>As for Barnett’s mother, I don’t really get what she was asking. Who is being threatened? I am not surprised she didn’t say anything directly about her son or the victims–I am sure she is under strict orders from the family attorney not to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It may be a variant of the whinefest interview she had with the Daily Mail as illustrated in the article I posted above. She’s using the same line of reasoning to blame the true victim and her family as an injured biker involved in the recent menacing and violent attack against the SUV driver in NYC…“we(the perpetrators & family) are the Twuu victims here”. Yeah…right.</p>
<p>Yes sally305 - good for her! If nothing else comes from Anonymous getting involved (as I pray that she gets justice), at least she know she has the emotional support of thousands of people now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is total BS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This has to be one of the worst threads on CC in recent memory. </p>
<p>Not only is Kansas not a former slave state I cant believe that people can get to typing the end of their sentence about how open minded they are and how bigoted and backward other peoples’ views are without the irony dawning on them.</p>
<p>Is the point of the forum to not only pile unsubstantiated statement on top of speculated evidence not only to lynch the accused, but to indite an entire town but while we are at it all small towns and all rural states? Where is Cotton Mather to stand athwart this. </p>
<p>There is a existing legal system, thanks. This doesnt need to be adjudicated and decided by keyboard warriors with a pet cause and a hashtag.</p>
<p>We are barely a couple of months out from the hoax that the KKK had decided to stage its resurgence, randomly, on the Oberlin campus and the only thing that could stop them was concerned bloggers and an Army of Facebook Likes. Four months ago there was a high profile case that the initial DA didnt charge because it was unwinnable, had an embarrassing denouement where the State say the guy could free because they couldnt prove anything. For all the social media huffing- the case was unwinnable and hand wringing and pearl clutching didnt change it. </p>
<p>If the Tawana Brawley case came up today wouldnt social media be the torch mob?</p>
<p>I really dont know about this case. I havent seen witness statement, evidence or what is or is not in the case file. I do have enough information to say I am not prepared to pass sentence on half the country. </p>
<p>Now can we please get onto Baby Hope, Leiby Kletzky and what their murders conclusively prove about people who happen to live in proximity? There we are on sounder ground.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Medical evidence/tests performed on the victim along with the suspect’s own admission has indicated what he did does constitute rape under most legal and commonsensical definitions. She was in no position to consent considering the level of alcohol in her bloodstream in a test conducted several hours after the incident. </p>
<p>It also doesn’t help that she was 13 at the time and the older suspect* left her to freeze outside half-naked for several hours until her mother discovered her.</p>
<ul>
<li>Heck, I started my freshman year of college at the same age he was at the time of the incident. So no, I’m not going to buy the “he’s too young” and “is a poor little naive widdle boy” BS excuses.</li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which seems to have failed as indicated by inconsistencies in the Prosecutor’s statements and the fact the suspect happens to have a grandfather who’s a politically connected state senator and is himself a member of the local football team.</p>
<p>Add to that the systematic persecution of the victim’s family and the suspicious circumstances surrounding their former home being burned down and this warrants an investigation from higher level state or perhaps even Federal authorities.</p>
<p>She was not 13 and the grandfather hasnt been in office for a decade. </p>
<p>If you think your command of the facts is sufficient to have the lynch mob leave the station thats up to you. Its also kind of an exposure to accuse someone obstructing justice on a public forum.</p>
<p>My point is none of this substantiates the inferences made about the town, “former slave states”, or what “closed minded people think”.</p>
<p>FYI, the Tawana Brawley case started because she snuck out to see boys and drink and then couldnt get back in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aren’t you being more speculative in comparing the Tawana Brawley case with this case? Especially when the latter has medical reports which showed injuries consistent with ones sustained in rape…especially considering the intoxication level she was found to have had several hours afterwards.</p>
<p>As for my “exposure” in stating the prosecutor has some inconsistencies in his statements, that came from a CBS report I linked to in post #74. The prosecutor can take up his beef with them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, because I specifically said I havent reached any conclusions. I am not taking a position- other people in this thread are. </p>
<p>I am pointing out the Brawley hoax that snowballed in case people are basing their reasoning on their being no other explanation of why an intoxicated girl might leave herself out in the cold after getting back later than she planned and finding out she cant sneak back in. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are aware that she had been drinking 80 proof rum at her own house for hours? And that she was the one who supplied it to the 13 yo?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>None of that has any bearing on the suspect’s actions…which even his own lawyer said he admitted to and the lawyer himself thought was “reprehensible”. The lawyer, however, doesn’t agree it’s rape…even though the victim had no way of consenting to the “sex” the suspect took part/acted in due to that level of intoxication.</p>
<p>
You are citing the intoxication level as conclusive proof that there was no other scenario that is even possible much less plausible. </p>
<p>In fact, it is established that Coleman herself was drinking for hours. And plying the young girl with booze. </p>
<p>Before any knickers bunch, I am point these things out because
a. I dont think the lynch mob is familiar with the basic facts in a case they are overly confident on
b. this isnt a case where there is prima facie no other possible explanation. </p>
<p>How do any of your know this was a winnable case? Forget about who’s story was correct, but was their sufficient evidence to get a conviction? We have no idea. Remember the police chief- who was on the Coleman’s side, said they had screwed up the case with their statements. We really dont know what they are. What if there is a text out there from Daisy saying “Gee, Johnny I am sorry this turned into such as hassle for you. See you Friday?”. Did they tell other conflicting stories to people the defense can call as witness?</p>
<p>Big Picture: What ever the innocence or guilty of these suspects, it proves nothing about the town, the State, “former slave states”, “the fly over”, “people who assume everyone is Christian”, or everyone who isnt currently living in a Top 15 urban center. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Love to exchange data, I am just finishing up my census and have a slight anomaly with your findings.</p>
<p>I have
Cities:
intolerant, narrow-minded: 79.239% (including Pauline Kahle)
tolerant, open-minded: 14.67
other: 2%
refused: 4.09</p>
<p>Fever Swamps:
intolerant, narrow-minded: 27.45%<br>
tolerant, open-minded: 72.05%
other: .05%
refused: 0%</p>
<p>My Chi-Squared is 1.88 and I am ready to publish. Please share your raw data.
I have confirmed that people who disagree with me are not only wrong, they are usually evil.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which has no bearing on the suspect’s actions…especially considering even his lawyer conceded he admitted to “having sex” with the victim which he termed “reprehensible” conduct" that night. The argument the suspect and his lawyer are making is that it’s “consensual” which cannot follow unless one discounts the intoxication level found in the victim several hours after the incident. </p>
<p>Doesn’t matter how she became intoxicated. The fact she was heavily intoxicated during the incident in question itself meant there was no way she could have given consent and thus…the “consensual sex” was not. There’s a term for the latter type of sex…and it starts with an r…</p>
<p>Nice effort at trying to toss a few red herrings, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>U.G.H.</p>
<p>It has a plausible bearing on why the girl was intoxicated! Which you cited as indicative of guilt. </p>
<p>Lets stipulate to this first: The lynch mob in this thread is wrong about
<p>ie you dont know ****</p>
<p>===> I am taking no position on guilty or innocence. </p>
<p>I am objecting to this lynch mob mentality (frankly ****ing DISGUSTING and a shame shame shame to whatever zipcode you live in ) because:
a. you have no facts
b. you dont distinguish between True and provable in Court
c. the ridiculous over-extrapolation</p>
<p>If you think that is a red herring, continue on.</p>
<p>I agree with argbargy on this. We are so divided already. I don’t see the point painting all small town as bigots. If small towns are bigots, big cities are crooks. In NYC, they drink $800 a glass wine while running the country to ruins. Those smooth folks got away with it, too. Where were frivolous lawsuits invented? All the waivers we had to sign thanks to them alone probably cost a rain forest. And we don’t cover up? How about Corzine or Ted Kennedy? Without the political connection, I doubt they would be free men. That CNN. Ever since Anderson Cooper reported about two kids swept away in Hurricane Sandy last year and accused a white man for not helping a black mom with two vulnerable kids, my eyes are opened. Who knows how much doctoring up goes on in that organization. They act good guys championing liberal issues. Along the way, they also turn non liberal issues to liberal issues stirring emotions up.</p>
<p>It is simply fascinating to me how this thread has persisted. </p>
<p>Judging the innocence or guilt of anyone or the facts of the case is hard enough when you are on a jury. Harder still when you are typing your ideas and interpretations on a internet discussion board by people who have a rudimentary grasp of the facts. </p>
<p>I would say most of us have passed our own verdicts on big cases that have been won or lost in the courtroom. If we were on that jury, well…</p>
<p>If a DA chooses to not prosecute, it may not just be a simple reason why. It may not be winnable. The evidence may be murky, the witnesses or plaintiff unreliable. </p>
<p>Sometimes justice is not served. </p>
<p>If you have ever known anyone who has been charged with a crime but found not enough evidence to prosecute, they do not get off scot free. There is almost always a stigma attached to them. The internet does not help that. I know someone like that, a guy accused of something fairly heinous who basically left the state and his livelihood even though not evidence, just an accusation. </p>
<p>Be careful here folks. Remember that if it happened to you that you were charged with a crime, lots of people will judge you. Even without all the facts. </p>
<p>In this country, we are still innocent until proven guilty by a jury of our peers.</p>
<p>I think it is true that we should avoid a lynch mob mentality. The whole town isn’t despicable because of the actions of a few people. For example, the restaurant where Matt Barnett worked part-time as a dishwasher while he was in high school is being inundated with threatening calls. Bad reviews about it are being posted on yelp and other sites. That’s just plain wrong. </p>
<p>But I also dislike argbargy’s arguments:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why the girl was intoxicated is irrelevant. If she was incapacitated–and remember that 2 of the boys who were there and the friend with her as well as the BAC test administered many hours later said she was–she could not consent to sex. </p>
<p>Moreover, remember that the boys drove her back to her home. If she couldn’t sneak back in–as argbagy invents out of whole cloth–it was wrong for the boys to dump her half dressed outside in 20 degree weather. She did not walk home by herself. But, her friend went back inside the house, so there obviously was no difficulty getting into the house.</p>
<p>Apparently, in Missouri, it isn’t statutory rape for a 17 year old to have sex with a 14 year old. That doesn’t make it morally right. (It is illegal in a lot of states.)</p>