Another Steubenville

<p>“FYI, the Tawana Brawley case started because she snuck out to see boys and drink and then couldnt get back in.”</p>

<p>Yeah,but with Tawana Brawley a lot of people smelled it for what it was, and there was serious fact finding on what happened. The DA didn’t simply say “I am not prosecuting this”, he came out and said why he wasn’t, and prosecuted those who committed the fraud (maddox lost his law license because of it), despite the fact that there was serious political pressure to prosecute the case, because it was racially sensitive. The DA in this case has in effect mumbled he had no case, he pulled a Bill Belichick and has refused to explain why, for example, the chief perp wasn’t prosecuted for having sex with the girl, not on statutory grounds, but because the girl was clearly was so drunk she couldn’t have consented. Yeah, I have heard the Lummoxes saying the boy was drunk, but that misses the point, if he was capable of having sex with the girl, he is able to be charged with rape, you can’t say "oh,he was so drunk he didn’t know what was going on’, because for him to have sex, he had to know what was going on. In the girls case, it isn’t arguing she was drunk and allowed herself to have sex, it is that she was so drunk she couldn’t make any kind of decision, big difference. Plus if the boy had been that kind of drunk, doubtful he could have had sex physically…the tox results alone on the girl, with how much she drank,should have made it non consensual sex (if he at 17 had sex with a 14 year old, I don’t personally consider that statutory rape). </p>

<p>To argue this is a lynch mob is idiotic, it is wrong use of the term. No one is saying the boy should be strung up, what they are saying is he should face justice. Among other things, given his families prominence, the case should have been handled by the state AG, on the grounds of political tainting. The same way a jury trial can be removed from where it happened (which would be wise in this case, on the grounds that given the families prominence and the notoriety of the case, a jury would likely be biased one way or the other). What people are arguing is that this case, unlike Tawana Brawley, never got to justice, because the DA seems to have simply dropped it without any kind of explanation. With Brawley, the DA fully documented why he didn’t prosecute, and every legal commentator said he had every reason to believe it was a hoax; with this one, from everything I have read, the DA simply said “I am not going to prosecute, I have no case” which seems pretty suspicious, given that the kids family was prominent and that the victim was by all accounts so drunk that it is pretty hard to claim that she was able to consent. </p>

<p>Argybargy seems to be making the same claim that people in the town did, that the girl wasn’t an angel, got stupidly drunk, and had sex with the boy, what they are claiming is basically if she hadn’t of gotten drunk, she wouldn’t have gotten raped. Among other things, if it was consensual sex, why did loverboy and his goon buddies just dump her on the lawn like that in sub zero temperatures? If what they did was simply consensual sex, why not let her wake up and take her home? After all, the parent couldn’t charge him with statutory rape, so why do what he did?. </p>

<p>The other thing people are talking about small town mentality about is that like Steubenville, most of the bile was thrown at the victim, and it was vicious, and most of it was “your a piece of trash, the boy is one of the football players, he is one of the ‘bright future youth’ and how dare you”…Worshipping high school football to that level is generally a small turn, rural phenomenon, while it is held in higher esteem IMO than it should be most places, it is religion in many small towns, including to the point of overlooking the behavior of the athletes. Things like this have happened in my area, and yeah, there were morons trying to cover it up and deifying the players, but in the end they end up prosecuted, in part because someone blows the whistle, the papers get involved, and the DA and cops are forced to act, which isn’t true where everyone worships the team.</p>

<p>As far as all the facts being out there, the fact that the DA dropped the case with the troubling questions raised makes it evident to me that something is amiss, and given the families prominence, someone outside the town should be investigating. I don’t know Missouri law, but in NJ the state AG has the right to investigate things like this…and if the DA has nothing to hide, then he should welcome clearing his name. Among other things, the state can supoena e-mail and phone records and see if there are any signs of tampering or anything that makes them think the DA was told to back off. One of the problems with DA’s is they are elected, and given the alleged perps family, and the kind of influence that has in a small town, it is hard to believe it wasn’t involved. Yeah, that could happen in a place like NYC, but given how big campaigns are, given how much is here, the media and so forth, one family couldn’t have enough influence to do that kind of thing, the DA would know that one family ****ed off at him couldn’t buy an election, whereas in a small town like that, it could. </p>

<p>Just out of curiousity, I spoke to two family members, both of whom had been ada’s in NYC, one of them in the sex crimes units, about the case, they read what was out there, and they basically said that from what they read (and they were careful to say based on what they read), that the girl would have been drunk enough that victims statements, whether conflicting or not, or anything the DA cited would be meaningless, that they would take it to a grand jury mostly based on the level of drunkenness of the girl and would more than likely get an indictment. Another friend of mine worked as an investigator for the DA in NYC, and he said that from the little that is out there, it didn’t sound like the DA’s office did much investigation either, that the DA didn’t take long to drop the case (again, he said from what he read of the case, and the timeline), that in something like this the office would spend a lot of time looking into it.</p>

<p>The reason people are upset is it smells, just like people in the NYC area were upset that the Brawley case smelled, that the girl’s story made no sense, that her claims given who she was and what happened made no sense (all from the media reports I might add). People who are upset about this case are incensed that people could be that vicious towards the victim, when the perp had acted like an animal, and basically said it was the girl’s fault because the boy was a football player and from ‘a good family’ (some family, if a kid could do this, they must be gems, somewhere along the way they forgot to teach him ‘small town values’ I guess), and that is what has many upset. A town full of people of virtue, with any kind of sense of morality or empathy, would be outraged that someone could do this, and would not be violating the victims and their families to protect, not a boy who had made an innocent mistake, but someone who did something vile. This wasn’t a boy having sex with a girl and going a bit over the line, this by all accounts, including his own lawyer, was a boy who did something horrible and got away with it, and apparently has zero remorse. The boy reminds me of Robert Chambers , the so called “Preppie Killer”, a privileged kid who killed a young woman he was having sex with and showed zero remorse; only difference was he was pilloried in NYC, and instead of worshipping him for being ‘an elite’, he was ripped apart for it.</p>

<p>BTW, it is silly and wrong to claim this is a slave state or southern or western or northern kind of mentality, there is plenty of it not far from where i live. In NJ, Sussex County is still pretty rural, and in the pre WWII area hosted more than a few Klansman, as well as German Bund members (there is a park in Andover that is a town park, that was a Bund camp back in the 20’s and 30’s), and to this day the area’s values are more those of Alabama than NJ. Hunterdon and Mercer county were/still are very rural, and they had major Klan activity in the day, as did south Jersey in the farming regions. </p>

<p>As someone said, it isn’t that small towns are evil or wrong, it is simply that their size makes, for example, a prominent family hold power over law enforcement, a lot more likely, or in the case of football players, breed a mentality a la “Friday Night Lights” that somehow high school football players are a different breed, subject to different laws, because high school football is one of the few distractions around <em>shrug</em>. Plus there isn’t the checks and balances that happen in bigger areas, if this case happened in an area with major media outlets and such, the DA would know that if he was going to drop the case, he better have good reasons, the way the DA in the Brawley case knew, in a small town power tends to be very, very concentrated and few are going to challenge that, it is the nature of small towns.</p>

<p>It took over a year to unroll the Tawana Brawley hoax and we are just at the beginning of the new investigation. To say “oh well everyone knew Brawley was a hoax gone wrong” is to rewrite history. People <em>didnt</em> know- even eight months later pubic opinion was still split about what happened. </p>

<p>I brought up Brawley because its a semi-parellel case where it was assume prima facie that they knew what must have happened because of the horrendous circumstances. The fact that there wernt charges was just proof of how high the conspiracy went!</p>

<p>I also bring it up because of how out of control that case would be in todays social media environment. I thought that would give some people pause… apparently not. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think I say practically every post, that I am <em>not</em> deciding anything about this case, I havent seen the evidence and I am not following that closely (but even having read a single article I spotted several incorrect facts on this thread). If you guys were just speculating about the specifics of case I never would have posted. </p>

<p>My objection is to the lynch mob departing the station and targeting such a wide swath of America- its laughable if it wasnt so pathetic. And while congratulating themselves on their open mindedness. I dont know how people are applauding vigilantes like Anonymous. </p>

<p>

I dont understand this “prominence”. The accused was working as a dish washer at a diner. The grandfather was a state representative (dime a dozen) a decade earlier and before that a career Highway Patrol (ie not the organization who investigated the case). It hardly like he is Jackie Treehorn. </p>

<p>“Hey Bob? Its me Rex… Rex Barnett? You remember I met you five years ago at Stan’s retirement party? Anywho… could you do me a solid and delete a cell phone video for me? Oh its in the possession of the police. Well can you destroy a bunch of logged evidence and throw a case for me? Whats that? Yeah I know its a felony but I’ll buy some Elks tickets from you next year. That ought to square us.”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Do many Missouri DA’s call you to explain their reasoning? My understanding is that Rice said their was insufficient evidence to get a conviction. He has seen all the evidence. He also happens to know what the applicable Missouri laws are and what is admissible. People on this board dont know either. </p>

<p>My understanding is that while they have some latitude that it is an ethical violation for a DA to bring a case that they dont feel can be won. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You are accusing someone of the felony of subverting justice with zero evidence. </p>

<p>And we have now had Sherlock Holmes and Friday Night Light (written by an urban Ivy league cross dresser) submitted as evidence about whats going on in all small towns, all over the country, all the time.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Folks in law enforcement and politics usually maintain their professional networks well past retirement…especially in smaller towns where being a retired law enforcement officer and/or politician conveys local elite status to him/her and by extension his/her family. </p>

<p>This even applies to some extent in larger urban areas. I personally know a few retired politicians…including a state senator who has been retired from politics for nearly as long. I can assure you he’s still a mover and shaker in the local/state party/political scene.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Argbargy, Maryville (like most of Kansas City) is in Missouri</p>

<p>It’s also a college town–not unlike many of the small towns CC parents are hoping to send their own students to next fall.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So do I. I dont call up people and ask them to commit a felony for me. And in doing so get myself on hook for a crime.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You sound remarkably naive about how politicians and political influence works, especially in small towns. </p>

<p>If a given retired politician who was also a former law enforcement officer has maintained his networks and is well thought of, he wouldn’t even need to lift a finger to make such a request. The cops, prosecutor, and local officials would do what they can to get him off lightly/scot-free of their own accord…especially in areas with a “good ole’ folks network”. It’s often done with a “wink and a nod”. </p>

<p>Among law enforcement circles, there’s also something called “professional courtesy” where if they find one’s a fellow law enforcement officer…even from a different jurisdiction…they have had a tendency to let them off more easily unless higher authorities/public outcry prevent it.</p>

<p>The cases which come to light and end up on trial are ones where there were some slipups by the participants themselves or higher level authorities caught wind of their activities and busted them.</p>

<p>Well in this case the County Sheriff (not Highway Patrol) arrested the kids and charged them with felonies. </p>

<p>How is that “professional courtesy’? How is that " he wouldn’t even need to lift a finger”?</p>

<p>Why dont you ask your retired state senator how he’d feel about calling up someone and asking them to commit a felony for him?</p>

<p>I don’t understand the “lynch mob” analogy to comments on this thread. You may agree or disagree, partially or wholly, with some comments but that doesn’t make the person you disagree into some part of a lynch mob. That would take action. Action like rape, firing a woman for no good reason, driving a family away with hostility, and the arson of their house. </p>

<p>Of course we don’t know all the facts here but no one is proposing to lynch the alleged rapists, only hoping for the justice system to do it’s proper job and take a good close look at their culpability. They dropped the ball.</p>

<p>Argbargy, I wonder where all your hostility is coming from. One of those girls could have easily died from alcohol poisoning or exposure. She has tried to commit suicide twice. The other was 13 years old and apparently unprotected by Missouri law (Missouri, not Kansas). What are you afraid of? There SHOULD BE a groundswell of outrage over how this case was handled. That is not the same as a lynch mob.</p>

<p>Well, there is this:</p>

<p>[Maryville</a> Alleged Rape: Special prosecutor requested to re-examine Mo. sexual assault case - Crimesider - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57607907-504083/maryville-alleged-rape-special-prosecutor-requested-to-re-examine-mo-sexual-assault-case/]Maryville”>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57607907-504083/maryville-alleged-rape-special-prosecutor-requested-to-re-examine-mo-sexual-assault-case/)</p>

<p>It is alleged because it hasn’t been proven that he is a rapist. How many times have you nice people branded him as a “rapist” this in this thread? </p>

<p>Just for the record, he may be. </p>

<p>I do not have all the facts, nor am I going to spend time reading up on this case, but the County Prosecutor opted not to try the case for several reasons. </p>

<p>"The station said that while Rice continued to defend his decision to drop the felony charges that were initially filed against two 17-year-old boys in the case, he decided to request a special prosecutor after seeing Daisy and her mother appear on CNN this week and acknowledge their willingness to testify in the case.</p>

<p>Rice had previously said, and still maintains, that he made the decision to drop the charges in the case due to a lack of evidence and the victims’ refusal to cooperate. He says Daisy and her mother, Melinda Coleman, invoked their Fifth Amendment right and therefore the case was not prosecutable."</p>

<p>A special prosecutor is reopening the case and more facts in the case will come out. </p>

<p>While lynch mob has an ugly, ugly connotation, trying an underage minor - whether accuser or accused - in the court of public opinion is rough, indeed.</p>

<p>Another point I want to make. There are so many sexual assault victims that refuse to press charges in the first place - because the scrutiny into their personal lives in the pre-trial and trial phase, as well as stigma after trial, prevents them from going forward against alleged perpetrator. </p>

<p>Honestly, I cannot blame them.</p>

<p>The question I have, Samurai, is what it means, practically, not to “try this case in the court of public opinion.” It isn’t as if anything we say here has any legal consequences, so basically, “trying the case” amounts to “having a discussion.” Should we not be having discussions about this case, or about any pending legal case? I think we’re mature enough around here, or should be, to understand that our condemnation and outrage is contingent on the assumption that the facts as presented are correct - and to understand that without putting a disclaimer in front of every post. For the purposes of a non-binding discussion, I don’t see anything wrong with reacting to information as it comes out, reserving the right to change our opinion as more facts become known.</p>

<p>I’m also not crazy about the idea that we should put all of our faith in the courts. From systemic injustice to plain old human error, there are plenty of reasons why an incorrect decision might be rendered. Reform is impossible if we always defer to the presumptive wisdom and superior information of the courts.</p>

<p>The complaints of victimization voiced by the mother of the alleged rapist Barnett brings to mind a line from a very old episode of Law & Order where Prosecutor Jack McCoy says (paraphrasing) ‘it’s the saddest day for a parent when he realizes he’s raised an S.O.B. for a son.’</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Whats this ‘reform’? Doing away the rules of evidence and that pesky due process? And actually having to have a scintilla of proof that someone was subverting justice before we accuse them of it?</p>

<p>re the ethical obligation of a DA not to bring a case that they think isnt winnable, is this unrelated news story:</p>

<p>

[Boulder</a> DA dismisses attempted-murder case in Nederland flashlight attack - Boulder Daily Camera](<a href=“Boulder DA dismisses attempted-murder case in Nederland flashlight attack – Boulder Daily Camera”>Boulder DA dismisses attempted-murder case in Nederland flashlight attack – Boulder Daily Camera)</p>

<p>The court of public opinion cases are those tried by people like us, fed by sallacious and often untrue or sometimes unprovable facts in a case. </p>

<p>So many situations where the media got involved, for better or worse. Here are a few to start: </p>

<p>Casey Anthony
Dominic Strauss-Kahn
OJ Simpson
George Zimmerman
Jon Benet Ramsay case
Joran Van der Sloot
McMartin Preschool case
Jerry Sandusky
Duke Lacrosse athletes case</p>

<p>There are more, I am sure. </p>

<p>Some were absolutely positively found guilty by the public before they actually went on trial. Others never went to trial, but people “know” what and who they beleve. </p>

<p>Even a defendant tried and found not guilty will never be really pardoned from the crime. It is on their epitaph and follows them. </p>

<p>My hope is that nobody in my family or none of my friends ever gets on the radar for being accused of something heinous and that it hits the national media and twittersphere. </p>

<p>Twitter, Facebook, blogs and the press feed the beast. We are curious and want to pass judgement, whether guilty or innocent. As I said before, we know what we “know”. </p>

<p>You are free to discuss anything you want here, as long as it isn’t political. Accusing a prosecutor and police of hiding a crime is your right. A terrible accusation, but goes with the territory. Calling a kid a rapist is also your right. I guess we draw the line at blaming the victim here, for her part. So that is good, at least. </p>

<p>My opinion, which doesn’t amount to much, is that it is easier to judge than be judged. </p>

<p>Carry on. I will leave you to it. I am out.</p>

<p>Argbargy, whether or not this case is one of them, I would hope that you can agree that there have been cases in which injustices have prevented a fair verdict from being reached. To use a blatant example, before the Civil War, there were states in which the testimony of blacks, slave or free, was not accepted, which had an obvious effect on the ability of courts to render judgments. That is ,thankfully, an obsolete extreme, but there are any number of other ways in which a legal system, even a generally equitable and well-meaning one, can fail - and yes, sometimes there might be ways of reforming the system that don’t require us to throw out evidence and due process. </p>

<p>Due process applies in a court of law. It doesn’t apply in forum postings. Even in a forum, it is irresponsible to knowingly spread misinformation. It is not irresponsible or, to my mind, unethical to have a mature conversation about information being disseminated in the mainstream media. Indeed, while it can devolve into hyperbole and unfounded accusation, it can also have the positive effect of opening dialogue on subjects of legitimate national concern.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I absolutely agree. However, as often happens here, a few posters have taken the conversation in the direction of vilifying large sectors of the country while simultaneously smugly parading their own moral superiority by virtue of being inhabitants of the NE/urban areas. There is nothing mature about what this thread has become over the past day or so.</p>

<p>There is a big difference between the discussion of this case and the events around it and the *handful *of posts about the nature of cities and small towns. I, as someone raised in a big city but currently living in a small town, decided not to engage what I saw as broad over-generalizations about cities v. towns. I considered saying some of the most intolerant people I know live in NYC, and some of the most sensitive to social issues live in this small town but I figured it was a waste of time to point that out. </p>

<p>I am, nonetheless, very interested in this case and given what I have read so far, agree that a second look at the decision to drop charges is appropriate.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Its pretty irresponsible, and possibly defamation, for posters to accuse Rex Barnett of tampering with evidence and subverting justice. As far as I can see there is 0 evidence of that. People are just putting 1 and 1 together and getting 11. </p>

<p>Its not a ‘reform’ to suggest that DA’s should just try cases based on public opinion if there isnt sufficient evidence to get a conviction. It would be essentially empowering the government to take away a year of a person’s life, impoverish them and create an lasting taint over their reputation on a whim. We already have more than enough abuses of government power. The cure would be 10x worse than the disease. And it would essentially enabled ‘prominent people’ to rail road anyone they like. </p>

<p>Regarding the towns reaction- hasnt occurred to anyone that Melinda Colman was negligent and essentially that resulted in the 13 year old friend Paige getting assaulted? The girl was on a sleep over in her house and was her responsibility to keep safe. Instead her daughter gave the girl alcohol, which Melinda Colman apparently didnt notice. Then she induced Paige to sneak out of the house at 1am. Coleman was supposed to be supervising but she didnt notice that. She never noticed they were gone all night, and didnt notice when Paige came back in. I wonder if this is what she was taking the 5th Amendment about that the sheriff said stalled out their case. </p>

<p>I can certainly see the family of the other girl being upset over the supervision failures that led to their daughter being endangered. Melinda Colman isnt a blameless party in this.</p>

<p>It is part of a prosecutor’s job to determine when charges should and shouldn’t be filed. It is part of an educated citizenry’s job to question public officials when something doesn’t seem right rather than blindly assuming they’ve acted appropriately; maybe they have, and maybe they haven’t. If the prosecutor knows something the public doesn’t, and caves to public pressure, that’s his fault, not the fault of the public. But if he doesn’t, and the facts are exactly what those critical of the investigation believe them to be, then public opinion is absolutely right - charges should be brought, whether that constitutes “caving” or not.</p>

<p>Frankly, this case doesn’t seem like the best example of a rush to judgment. Unless the articles I’m reading are wrong, Barnett admitted to having what he called consensual sex with the girl. A rape kit apparently confirms that the two had had sex (while the results are not public, the examining doctor is on record saying that he was surprised charges were dropped). Blood alcohol tests taken the morning after the incident showed that Coleman still had a BAC of .13 hours after the party had ended. Multiple eyewitnesses confirm that she had to be carried out of the house. Even without adding in the number of people who claim to have seen a video of the act, or the fact that she was left outside in freezing temperatures, it sounds to me like we have an admission of sex combined with strong evidence that the girl was intoxicated to the point of serious impairment. That sounds a lot like rape to me. </p>

<p>We also know that charges were dropped. It is possible that, as the prosecutor claims, this is because the Colemans weren’t cooperating. It is also possible that the Colemans are telling the truth, and the prosecution declined to make what seems like a very convincing case. Given the competing motivations on each side, I’m inclined to believe the Colemans. But whether I’m right or wrong, I don’t think it is out of bounds - it certainly isn’t libel - to wonder if either a powerful voice intervened to get what seemed like a promising case shut down - or if some people in the prosecutor’s office decided, as perhaps you have, that Daisy Coleman and her mother got what was coming to them.</p>