I read early reports - locked maintenance closet accessible only from the roof, and the roof was only accessible by key as well, the key being passed around among seniors. I told y’all I would try to find the citation. It was clear from the link posted a few posts ago that the another phrase used was “secluded attic”.
This wasn’t a bathroom at a party, it was a closet on a roof with a locked door.
“it didn’t take a key to get out”? It was a closet. You go into a closet, have someone trying to rape you, and try to get out of the closet. I’m sorry if you thought I meant that he locked the door from the inside - the implication was that no one could have gotten in to help (they were on the roof, so good luck with that anyway).
Premeditated so she could not leave was based on: being in a closet with someone pawing you, as opposed to being in a bedroom where you could try to get off the bed or move away, and premeditated also in terms of him getting a stolen (we assume? do prep schools normally give out keys to the roof to their students?) key to enter a secured area with no one around.
@RenaissanceMom I agree with you that SPS failed their students, in my opinion by failing to recognize/understand the consequences of the social dynamics at play within their residential community. If in fact the faculty/staff generally had no idea that certain seniors participated in an annual season of enticing younger students to meet up for some sort of sexual encounter before graduating they are guilty of being woefully out of touch with those in their steed. It’s simply not enough to claim they had no idea to what extent this was going on- I read in a previous account that senior girls routinely warned freshman girls to be careful/wary of senior salutes- so if the faculty were generally unaware I have to ask how well these faculty actually get to know their students and in what type of capacity. If the school had its ears to the ground I doubt it would have been difficult to uncover details regarding the darker side of certain senior solutes.
And so what if some “scores” were simply for kissing or walking around the pond? Even if it didn’t involve “taking a girl’s virginity” it STILL objectifies young women and promotes a toxic culture that encourages attention be paid to younger girls for “points”. I have to say SPS really dropped the ball here. And believe me- I don’t mean in any way shape or form to diminish Labrie’s guilt he was the perpetrator of the crimes- but it seems like it was a pretty easy environment in which to commit those crimes.
I truly don’t mean to offend any of you who have close relations with SPS as I know in many ways it is an exceptional school and countless students have had excellent/positive experiences there. My point is simply that it seems SPS was unwilling to pursue the probability that some of their students were potentially engaged in some pretty unsavory and ultimately illegal behaviors.
As to sentencing, this is a Class B felony under NH law and the law, as I read it, states no minimum so the judge may sentence from no jail time to the maximums listed, which are up to 3½ to 7 years in state prison. The judge may sentence up to 5 years of probation and the maximum fine in this, a non-drug case, is $4000.
Note something else about the statute: it explicitly says it’s a crime to seduce a minor even if the person being seduced isn’t actually a minor but is believed by the defendant to be one. In other words, they’re referring to police stings with an adult pretending to be a minor and are making sure it’s still a crime even though a cop posed as a child. That says to me again: this statute isn’t aimed at and doesn’t refer to or include this case.
^ Didn’t that boy approach the girl directly to talk to her? Not sure but thought I had read that.
One could argue that the defendant’s use of the freshman boy to help with this could be considered hazing.
Although I think the jury made good decisions give the parts of the testimony/evidence I heard, my thoughts are with all parties. I feel real sympathy for the parents of both the defendant and the victim.
Some eighteen year old boys who pursue young girls ARE sexual predators. Others are just immature.
Do we want to wait until it happens a second time and then say, “OK, he really is a sexual predator”?
Did I read somewhere that the sexual predator designation can be expunged after a certain period of time? That seems to be the best solution.for a gray area like this.
I really do not like the broad brush approach these registries seem to have taken. I do not think that is why they had public support.
When I was purchasing my home I actually checked the registry. I did not check it to find drunk college kids peeing in an alley.
I am not defending this kid but the penalty for e-mailing a young lady to meet and have sex seems harsh especially since the not guilty finding on many of the charges
Dunno about that. My great grandmother on my mom’s side, (her mom’s mom) had 3 children from 3 different American Indian fathers around that age - way back in the late 1800’s. Apparently she was a bit of a wild child.
Maybe a good way to change the sexual predator registry laws would be to allow for the discretion of the sentencing judge. It seems like these registries have no gray areas to accomodate the college kids peeing in the alleys or the type of situation here (Labrie).
Don’t know if Labrie should qualify as a sexual predator for life because I did not hear the evidence at trial like the judge did. My sense from everything I have read is that this would be a tragic, cruel and ridiculous punishment for this very young adult. However, the judge who sat through the entire trial would be better able to make that call - unfortunately, it seems that his hands are tied by these zero tolerance statutes that were not intended to apply to every situation, yet ARE being applied to every situation.
I agree with that. I also think there needs to be a process from getting removed from these lists for certain offenses in case a judge makes a poor decision.
I’m not sure how I feel about this. Initially I only became aware of this trial because GMA reported on it regularly, and since I was only half listening, and seeing the film clips of a preppy looking “boy” whose body language seemed to exemplify weak introvert to me, I found myself wondering if the jury would convict him.
Then I found this thread…and what an eye opener! Just the difference in Owen’s appearance between arrest and trial was mind boggling. Then the fact that he obtained new counsel because his former lawyer was working out a plea deal indicated to me that Labrie really thought he could walk.
Reading many posters characterizations of Labrie on the stand was another nail in his coffin for me, but I didn’t think the jury would convict. (Again this was based on the many expert postings on this thread. Thank you to all who took the time to explain your reasoning.)
But now that we have the verdict, I feel so conflicted about the outcome. I did want Labrie to be held accountable, especially because I think he thought he could smooth talk his way out of it. But being labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life seems harsh. I wonder if the victim feels that the punishment fits the crime.
But then I keep coming back to how it appears that Labrie thought he could beat the system, so maybe he needs a reality check.
Put every man who solicits sex on the sex registry and then see the howling…I don’t see the difference between this kid texting or emailing from a fully formed adult soliciting sex from a prostitute. Rape aside, because the jury could not call it rape, the prostitute goes along with it for the money the high school girls for prestige. The sex registry is completely over the top for me. The misdemeanor charges - I have to believe the jury as they heard the testimony.
I don’t understand sending your child to boarding school in the first place, unless the school has some sort of special program or the child has special education needs. No one on the west coast does this. It must be an east coast thing.
Obviously this school had no oversight over the activities of these high schoolers, there was no monitoring, in other words no parenting in lieu of the parents being there.
Several years ago a disturbed young man entered the state of Maine and murdered two men whose names and addresses he found on the sex offender registry. One of them was in his 20s, and had been convicted of “rape” because as an older teen he had consensual sex with his underage GF. He had no other criminal record in the intervening years.
Seems to me that bringing that charge at all was prosecutorial over reach.
@FlyMeToTheMoon, I suggest that you continue to rely on your own impression of Labrie. Those who deemed him an arrogant, smooth-talking villain had no more information than you did.
I think that the letter from the school was aimed at heading off a lawsuit from the girl’s family.
Although since they appear to be well-to-do already it may be unlikely that they would put their D through that…one would hope, anyway. Perhaps if he had been acquitted of all charges they would have been more likely to sue. Labrie has no money. The deep pockets are SPS and, apparently, her family.
Yup and they probably think their D is a perfect angel and would still be if it wasn’t for the school and the evil kid. Lots of people send their kids to boarding schools thinking it is a better, safer environment than their local public schools.
