<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t realize that in choosing to get some sleep rather than drink a gallon of coffee and go in and out of my teenager’s room every 5 minutes to see what she and her friend are doing is negligence on my part. </p>
<p>Someone should arrest me, I guess.</p>
<p>I thought you welcomed speculation on the facts of this case?</p>
<p>Now you unsurprisingly ‘misinterpret’ my perfectly straight forward statement into blaming Daisy Coleman. An accidental inference I am sure. </p>
<p>The town’s reaction is taken as a damning indication in this thread. However who is likely to have the most raw information about this case? Not the thread posters, as you may have supposed. But the neighbors- who are able to asses the character of the people involved through long experience, who have heard every conversation, know the whispers, and have talked first hand to the people involved. </p>
<p>Perhaps some of the town’s people are aghast at Melinda Colman blaming the prosecutor, the town, and ‘prominent families’ for this incident while not acknowledging that she herself was bordering on criminally negligent in not doing anything (apparently) to supervise the 13 year old girl in her custody. Perhaps they find that galling. </p>
<p>Here is what the sheriff said:
</p>
<p>Does that seem like a lot of “professional courtesy”. I know all the references here are based on fictional sources, so feel free to cite Matlock. </p>
<p>So Sheriff White not on the side of the giant Barnett Corp Gmbh conglomerate. Established? How about this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok so Sheriff White has established his side in this. So what screws up the case he had wrapped up?</p>
<p>
[Why</a> Was The Maryville Rape Case Dropped? | KCUR](<a href=“http://kcur.org/post/why-was-maryville-rape-case-dropped]Why”>Why Was The Maryville Rape Case Dropped? | KCUR - Kansas City news and NPR)</p>
<p>There you have someone with first hand knowledge of the case, who is sympathetic to the Coleman’s position who says that the case cannot be won. And it cant be won because of statements and actions of the Colemans.</p>
<p>And we have also established that the ethics of the District Attorney’s office indicate that they should not be bringing a case that the dont reasonably feel can be won.</p>
<p>Put those two facts together and is it is so impossible that Rice should drop the case? Is it also improbably that some people might find it galling that Melinda Colman is blaming other people to the press while ignoring her own role in the events?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seriously, what is her role? Getting a few hours of sleep?</p>
<p>Nothing in the quoted article does anything to suggest how a case that included a rape kit, a BAC test, multiple eyewitnesses, and, taped video confessions from the suspects, could possibly be derailed by the Colemans. The only substantive claims we get are that the victims began trying to expand the witness list from 7 to an unwieldy 200, and that the victims, unlike the suspects, weren’t “smart enough to keep their mouths shut after it all happened.” Still isn’t adding up for me. Whatever the Colemans said would have had to be pretty darn bad to derail a case that the sheriff himself admits was looking pretty good. </p>
<p>I would also note that another article I read law enforcement suggested that the main reason the case collapsed was the Colemans’ refusal to testify. White doesn’t emphasize that here. So which is it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What if they told 200 different stories in talking to people and they have conflicting details? Do you see how that might make things difficult?</p>
<p>Yes. It is possible - although again, recall that there was also considerable evidence apart from eyewitnesses.</p>
<p>And that is speculation, too. Why is it appropriate when you introduce speculations or draw inferences that are unfavorable to the victim and her family, but irresponsible libel when others do the same about law enforcement?</p>
<p>By the way, I wouldn’t be shocked if it turned out that there HADN’T been any nefarious intention on the part of officials, and that they indeed (perhaps mistakenly, perhaps not) dropped the case only when the victim hedged about testifying (I would be shocked if it turned out Barnett was not a rapist). But I think it is likely that there was some mishandling by the department, and in either case, the question needs to be asked.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whats the considerable evidence? The video tape doesn’t exist and there seem to be different stories about what was on it. A rape kit is physical evidence but thats evidence of intercourse, not of rape. Do we even know what Missouri’s laws are regarding intoxicated consent? I see two things that arent testimony- rape kit and BAC test. Thats not “considerable”.</p>
<p>There may also be texts, facebook posts etc that can corroborate testimony but we dont know about those. The Sheriff and the DA do however. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would have thought it was obvious. </p>
<p>People are accusing Rex Barnett of a crime with zero evidence. </p>
<p>What have I said about Daisy Colman that is unfavorable? That she is the one who gave the 13 year old rum, that she is the one who got the girl to sneak out at 1am to go a party with highschool seniors? Thats not speculation- those are details in her version of events. </p>
<p>Regarding Melinda Coleman- thats not speculation either. The 13 year old was sleeping over at her house and was in her custody. She did a negligent job of supervision and the girl was assaulted. Dont you think its possible there might be a civil suit against Coleman from the girls family?</p>
<p>You are speculating that the witnesses they introduced reveals holes in their story. You are speculating that their intransigence or unreliability is what caused the case to be dropped. And if you are suggesting that, you are coming pretty close to accusing them of some combination of lying to authorities, filing a false report, and obstruction of justice, all of which are actual crimes. </p>
<p>Missouri State Law: Sex can’t be considered consensual if</p>
<p>“ a person who by reason of youth, mental disease or defect, or intoxication, is manifestly unable or known by the actor to be unable to make a reasonable judgment as to the nature or harmfulness of the conduct charged to constitute the offense.”</p>
<p>Given that, a rape kit confirming intercourse and a BAC test providing evidence of intoxication is considerable evidence. Plus, the article you cited maintains that White had VIDEO CONFESSIONS from the two boys.</p>
<p>White’s statements do make me wonder if the Colemans were the best or most cooperative witnesses. But the two aren’t mutually exclusive; Melinda Coleman could have done some damaging things, and the DA could still be wrong for dropping the case. A case has to have a reasonable chance at conviction to be worth bringing to trial; it doesn’t have to be a slam dunk. Right now, we have a lot of information suggesting this would have been a case worth bringing to trial, and only some vague statements suggesting it might not have been. Whatever side you come down on, I don’t think it is wrong to venture an opinion on one side or the other - and an opinion on either side is accusing one party or another of some bad, if not criminal, behavior.</p>
<p>The sheriff is the one who said that they “harpooned the case” by talking to people. He also said the stopped cooperating and took the 5th Amendment.</p>
<p>Let’s say I’m sitting on a jury for a rape trial. The prosecution accuses the defendant of having a sexual encounter with the supposed victim while the supposed victim was unable to consent. A rape kit found semen from the defendant in the supposed victim’s vagina. The defendant says that the supposed victim did consent. Others testify that the supposed victim was drinking, and was visibly affected by alcohol before the sexual encounter. Hours after the event, the supposed victim, a young thin teenager, was found just regaining consciousness, with a BAC of .13.</p>
<p>That would be enough evidence for me. I’d convict, because I’d conclude that the defendant couldn’t possibly be telling the truth: the supposed victim couldn’t possibly have been sober enough to consent.</p>
<p>"What have I said about Daisy Colman that is unfavorable? That she is the one who gave the 13 year old rum, that she is the one who got the girl to sneak out at 1am to go a party with highschool seniors? Thats not speculation- those are details in her version of events.</p>
<p>Regarding Melinda Coleman- thats not speculation either. The 13 year old was sleeping over at her house and was in her custody. She did a negligent job of supervision and the girl was assaulted. Dont you think its possible there might be a civil suit against Coleman from the girls family? "</p>
<p>Whatever happened before has zero relevance to the case, and what the ‘good citizens’ of Maryville are arguing is somehow because the girls had been drinking, the mom hadn’t supervised them, that the girl ‘deserved it’, which is exactly the same thing the trash in Steubenville argued, that because the girl was drunk out her mind, and went with the boys, that it wasn’t rape because what she did led to her downfall, and that is quite frankly sickening.</p>
<p>Here is what everyone, including the lawyers, agree to as far as I can tell:</p>
<p>1)the girls had been drinking, and continued to drink, and BAC done later indicated she was severely intoxicated at the time of the incident(.18 projected if I remember correctly, which is getting near alchohol poisoning).</p>
<p>2)The boy had sex with her when she was so drunk.</p>
<p>From what seems to be the prevailing information out there, that level of drunkeness is enough under Missouri law to charge the boy with rape because the girl could not consent. One thing for those who say “we don’t know what her alcohol was”, metabolizing alcohol is a known property, for a girl her size, they know how fast alcohol is metabolized, so they can figure out how drunk she was x hours before the BAC was done. </p>
<p>Those are facts, based in evidence if what I read was right, so what the family said is irrelevent, or even 200 witnesses or whatever. If there was that kind of evidence, physical evidence, they don’t even need the witnesseses, if the boy had sex with her and she was that drunk, he is basically guilty, because if those levels are correct, she was drunk beyond being able to consent (if the ‘facts’ are wrong, then that would come out at trial). </p>
<p>The town in criticizing the mom and criticizing the girl, while defending the boy, is basically saying she was a s*** who deserved what she got, which is what so many in Steubenville said, it is knee jerk reaction when defending a ‘prominent’ or ‘popular’ kid, usually jocks, when crap like this happen…it is no different than in rape cases where the defense would ask about the victims sex life, what she was wearing that day, etc, to show how she was ‘asking for it’…the girl was stupid getting drunk like that, I won’t argue that, but the law doesn’t say that rape only happens if a guy pulls a knife on a woman dressed in a moo moo, it says it is rape if the woman couldn’t consent. </p>
<p>If the physical facts I cited are in act true, which they seem to be, that alone is grounds for rape, in that the BAC level alone can show that the girl was out of it. Among other things, a young person that age is going to be a lot more incapacitated than an adult that age with a given BAC (had more than a bit of experience with that being on a rescue squad that dealt with underage drinking). </p>
<p>Whatever the mother did or didn’t do, whatever the girl drank, the town is dead wrong when they blame either the girl or her mother, if the boy had sex with a girl that drunk, if those figures are true, nothing changes the fact that he committed a crime…and it raises question why the DA would drop the case in the first place.</p>
<p>I also have read where people in the town claim the boy is being pilloried because he comes from a prominent family. Given the reality of how much money and prominence buy someone who is accused of a crime, that is a joke, and given the kind of power well off families have over elected officials like DA’s, that quite frankly is a joke in my opinion. I don’t care personally if people want to criticize the mother or daughter for being stupid, but what they are doing is blaming them, rather than the boy who was in control of himself (if he was so drunk he was not cognizant, he couldn’t have had sex with her) and took advantage of someone too drunk to say yes. It would be no different then if he had slipped her a date rape drug, if the facts of the alcohol level are true as I have seen reported, then at the very least they have proof enough for trial IMO. </p>
<p>People are not convicting the boy of anything, he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but the problem here is the DA seems to have made sure that he never will face trial for his actions. If he is innocent of the crime, the trial would figure that out, the fact that the DA didn’t prosecute doesn’t make him innocent, and worse for him, it leaves him with a cloud his families money will never clear, he is legally innocent at this point, but dodging a trial, dodging the facts being judged in a court, means he is going to be suspect in many people’s eyes, other than maybe the good citizens of Maryville with their “boys will be boys” attitude. If anything, they shouldn’t be calling the girl white trash, as many have done, they should be pushing that it go to trial so the facts are brought out into the open and he is judged by a jury, cause right now all you have is a mess that will reverberate I suspect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I dont think that is stipulated to. In the article I read, the the boys said she was “buzzed not drunk” at the party.
What if the girl was drinking/continued to drink after the act? Now you have to depend on witness testimony to try to work back to a bac at the time. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We already went through that it is unethical for a DA to go to trial if he doesnt think the case is winnable, so you cant adopt this “eh whats the harm of a trial” attitude.</p>
<p>Further, a trial isnt going to establish innocence. It add to the presumption of guilt, and some people are always going to say “oh he got off because they didnt allow this in” or “that witness was lying etc…”. People who have their mind made up arent going to be convinced by a trial, so that is hardly a sufficient reason to have one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You keep ignoring the results of medical tests established the alcohol levels were still exceedingly high several hours after the incident along with the fact she sustained injuries during the supposed “consensual sex” per the words of the suspect and his lawyer who termed it “reprehensible conduct” but argues it’s “not criminal”. </p>
<p>The boys’ accounts here are problematic for the following reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>They have a strong incentive to couch their accounts so its favorable to their cases. The fact the town’s backing them up here adds to that incentive. </p></li>
<li><p>Their words are contradicted by objective medical tests which have been carried out and results released to the public.</p></li>
<li><p>None of the boys have the professional expertise on alcoholic intoxication to make a valid analysis on the levels of intoxication. Especially when tests carried out by actual medical professionals have effectively contradicted those statements.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>What if the girl was drinking/continued to drink after the act?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Everything most of us posters are discussing regarding this case has been based on reported information released to the public. </p>
<p>Unless you have a report stating that which you’d wish to link…it looks like another example of a red herring tossed into this discussion…and a very transparent victim blaming one at that.</p>
<p>It really doesnt seem to be that hard to follow these things. Why are you having such a difficulty? I have said nothing about blaming Daisy Coleman. </p>
<p>Your thesis is: based on the information that has been published, that is all the information necessary for a rape conviction and therefor whatever additional the information and testimony known to the DA and the Sheriff which lead them to conclude the case was unwinnable is irrelevant. </p>
<p>I dont think that is correct. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I responded that I dont believe that was agreed to by everyone. The Kansas City Star article claims Barnett told the sheriff “she was only “buzzed,” not yet drunk, when the encounter took place.”</p>
<p>So not everybody agrees that she was drunk. Thats not an uncontested fact so it will need to be established during a trial. </p>
<p>You said:
</p>
<p>This assumes she stopped drinking, was assaulted, then several hours later had an observed BAC of .13. Therefor we can work back to her state of intoxication at the time. </p>
<p>If we can do that, then we could conclude she couldnt give consent at the time of the intercourse, and we dont need to examine other facts. </p>
<p>However, what if after the act she continued to drink. Maybe one of these idiots gave her more rum to “warm her up” on the drive home. If that happened then you can no longer say what her BAC was at the time of the intercourse. Then it once again becomes a matter of establishing facts in a courtroom in front of a jury. </p>
<p>Was she drinking afterwards? I dont know. The Sheriff knows and the DA does, or at least they have everybody’s statements. </p>
<p>The point is that the Thesis is wrong. We dont have enough information from the news reports alone to establish legal guilt.</p>
<p>So now you are reduced to arguing that this slender girl, who we know was (stupidly) drinking rum at home before the incident, and who we know was drinking at this get-together, was actually not incapably drunk at the time of the incident, but instead drank an enormous amount of alcohol, enough to make her BAC .13 several hours later, on the way home. </p>
<p>Oh, yeah, and also that this girl got bruising and injuries consistent with rape, during this supposed consensual sex.</p>
<p>Tough sell. You’re going to have trouble convincing this juror.</p>
<p>I am sure this was covered and I missed it, but were the girls old enough to consent in ay event?</p>
<p>Apparently in Missouri they were old enough to consent.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ageofconsent.com/missouri.htm[/url]”>http://www.ageofconsent.com/missouri.htm</a></p>