Court cases and their outcomes are not magic, they are people doing their best. Just like there are people who are wrongfully convicted, there are those who are guilty but get away with it.
The difference is that your conviction can be overturned, but only if you’re found guilty at first.
This case was difficult to determine and complicated, and it’s not surprising that it ended up split on different charges.
player aka playa!
In which case I’m just super-glad that my daughters were most definitely not normal. Let’s hear it for abnormality in the face of a decadent and sex-obsessed culture.
“I don’t disagree that the ministry could use more sadder but wiser people, I’m just not sure that he is the one.”
He has a lot more living to do before this would even be a question. We don’t know what kind of person he’ll be in ten years, especially if he goes to jail and/or gets college and graduate degrees. If I were hiring a prison chaplain, I might look for this kind of background.
Part 1 @ Consolation
IMO, in order to believe Labrie’s story and acquit him based on it, you have to ignore NH law, the DNA evidence, and Labrie’s own testimony. I’m not going to point out all the reasons why I don’t think that version of events is believable, but here are a couple.
As @GnocchiB points out “Penetration” doesn’t require use of the male sexual organ. The law also specifically states that emission is not a required element for conduct to constitute penetration. It ALSO says that entry of emission into the other person is in and of itself penetration. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/632-a/632-a-mrg.htm And while you may not know this…I’d bet a lot that Owen Labrie did; that it was part of the sex ed at St. Paul’s.
In this case, the victim testified that she said NO and that she tried to hold onto her underwear but Labrie yanked it down. He denied that either of them ever removed his/her underwear. His testimony is that he put on a condom under his underwear and was still wearing it when he left for the concert. His sperm and semen were found on the inside crotch of her underwear. They were NOT found in her cervix. So, IMO, the jury may have felt that it could not find that they had actual sex beyond a reasonable doubt. But the presence of his semen and sperm on the inside of her underwear probably lead the jury as well as yours truly to disbelieve his "neither of us took our underwear off. " She gave graphic testimony re his “prep” of her vagina for sex, including licking her “down there” and that explanation is IMO consistent with the physical evidence, including the abrasion. If her version is true, there was penetration.
Moreover, he came up with the premature ejaculation story at the last second…after he found out his DNA and sperm were on the inside of her underwear. But if you believe his story…that he was afraid some of his sperm may have leaked into her and that’s why he asked her about birth control to “comfort her” …well…if it did…that’s penetration too.
Two of the five guys he told this too tried to talk him out of it. Who brags to people who think it’s a bad idea and who know it’s a crime? One of the two who warned him DID IT IN WRITING. This is the one who told the police Labrie admitted it and then said he lied to the police. He might have denied advising against it as well…but he did it in an email. The other one was Thomson, Labrie’s roommate. He seemed to be trying as hard as he could not to hurt Labrie and to me that made him all the more credible.
Thomson testified that he himself did not participate in the Salute. (The minor witness who acted as go between said Labrie told him he was competing with Thomson. Thomson denied this and there are apparently no emails linking him to the game. I say “apparently” because nobody crossed him on it.) He said he knew the victim because she was a classmate of his own sister, also a freshman. Thomson said he tried to talk Labrie out of it because the girl was “WAY” younger than us.
If I would believe one boy who would say he didn’t like the Salute and didn’t participate it would be the guy with the kid sister who might be a target too. And his testimony is that he asked Labrie what happened when Labrie returned from the meeting with the girl. Thomson kept pressing him…Labrie wasn’t “giving him much information” and Labrie finally answered he “boned her.” That doesn’t sound like he told Thomson to brag to him. Oh, how I’d love to know what happened then!!! As far as I know, that was not asked and not relevant maybe, but how I’d love to know. Because I don’t think Thomson “high fived” him. The “deny til I die” "this will blow over ’ messages from after the girl complained introduced into evidence weren’t sent to Thomson. Maybe I’m giving Thomson too much credit, but Labrie’s whole “I bragged to them to impress them” stuff just doesn’t ring true to me when it comes to Thomson. I think Thomson was less than impressed.
Anyway…I just don’t buy the “I was wearing a condom but I must have ejaculated before I put it on because I noticed my shorts were damp”—huh, couldn’t they get damp from the condom he was still wearing under his shorts?–so i began to think my sperm could have leaked out of my underwear onto her underwear and into the inside of her underwear so it might have gotten inside her so she needs birth control " bit.
Well, it’s not MY scenario, its his scenario. Yes, I agree…if she did not consent. I’m a bit unclear about which parts she did and did not agree to at the time. (Clearly she appeared to agree to agree to some things, as she indicated. I haven’t read her actual testimony anywhere, only other people’s characterization of it. The jury heard it though.)
When was this? Haven’t seen this detail before.
Seriously? He was 18 years old, for doG’s sake! And the jury, who unlike us actually heard all of the testimony, uncut, didn’t think he committed forcible rape. They thought he had sexual contact with a girl under 16 while he was 18.
Why are you addressing this to me? I have never said or implied that she was “promiscuous” or anything like it. (And for the record, even if she were, she has a right to say NO and have it heard. I don’t care if she was a prostitute or a stripper.) Don’t try to paint me with that brush.
Hold on right there. I said NOTHING about acquitting him. Never. I have said all along that what he did was very, very wrong, and of course I know that penetrating her with anything without her consent is rape.
Leaving that aside, your points about Thompson are well taken.
There are many ministries helping ex-convicts, as well as nonprofits like the Fortune Society. Many/most of them employ people who were previously incarcerated, and many were started by and are run by ex-cons.
I am the one who called the girl promiscuous. They both were IMO. Difference is, she was 15 and he was 18, and in the state of NH that means hands off, no matter how promiscuous she was, and even if she consented (which is a subject of hot dispute in this thread). I contend that the jury got it right because they heard the evidence, and concluded as a group that she did consent, or else they would have had to find him guilty of forcible rape. Flame away, this is my opinion.
“It’s not like he violently raped her (so says the jury who heard the evidence). Innocent until proven guilty.”
“And the jury, who unlike us actually heard all of the testimony, uncut, didn’t think he committed forcible rape.”
It’s making a leap to state that the jury is saying that Labrie did not commit forcible rape. They just did not find that the prosecution’s evidence/witnesses’ testimony proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. My guess is at least some/all of the jury believed he was guilty of raping without consent but could not prove it “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Hence, finding him guilty of the one felony where there was concrete proof. I think the jury knew what they were doing and wanted to send a message.
@doschicos, your guess is just that. Your guess. As a matter of law Labrie must be considered innocent of forcible rape. If the media published anything to the contrary they could be sued for libel. I for one saw no evidence, concrete or otherwise, proving forcible rape. Even the girl’s own testimony re nervous laughing and assistance with clothing removal convinced me quite certainly that her message of “no” was not conveyed.
I do believe that SHE believes she conveyed it. I do not believe that it was actually conveyed to this defendant. I did not hear the evidence however.
They can print the victim’s testimony.
The definition of promiscuous in this sense is “having many sexual partners.” There is no evidence that the victim had had many sexual partners. It is fascinating how the tendency to blame the victim continues.
I agree with doschicos–the jury couldn’t agree on everything, but they agreed on the misdemeanors to send a message. They probably had difficulty with destroying the life chances of a young man.
The use of a computer is an interesting charge. I have noticed how at some boarding schools the sexes are more separated than one might think. They live in separate dorms (unlike college). They play on different teams. At some schools, if you enter the dining hall, you may see that they tend to sit in gender-segregated groups, boys at one table, girls at another.
As a freshman, she was not in his classes. If they weren’t in the same extracurricular activities, they would have few chances to talk. Others would have observed their conversation, had he tried to set up the “date” in person. He might have faced faculty curiosity. (which would have been all to the good, were it to have persuaded him to change his plans.) He recruited a freshman boy to talk her into the meeting.
@prospect1 - As a matter of law, he is not innocent. He is just “not guilty”. There is a difference. That is the point I am making, besides my own opinion. There is gray area between guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and not guilty.
“He also wavered when explaining who had pulled out a condom, Curtin said, initially asserting it was the girl, then later claiming it was him.” - testimony of Det. Curtin
Nice try, @periwinkle, but that is not the only definition of “promiscuous”. It also means being indiscriminate in one’s choice of sexual partners, which I believe this girl was.
You don’t know what the jury was thinking. How do you know they intended to send a message. Have any spoken out yet? All I know is what they found legally on he charges presented to them.
Why do you and others insist that calling this girl promiscuous is blaming the victim. I have not seen one person here blame her. Not one. Please point to the post stating that she “got what she deserved” or similar nonsense. Would you tell your daughter to act as she did? I would not. I think this case is just as cautionary a tale for girls as it is for boys.
@jonri - I agree with your points above but: "disbelieve his “neither of us took our underwear off” "
It’s possible this is true. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a pair of guy’s underwear without a fly, so taking off his underwear wasn’t a necessity by any means.
@prospect1 - The parts where I wrote ‘my guess’ and ‘I think’ indicate it is my opinion, yes. 
My point that he was found not guilty, but not innocent as you claim is just a fact of law-
@doschicos. No gray area, legally speaking. The law presumes his innocence of charges until proven guilty, which is a prerequisite that did not occur. He could ultimately be found civilly liable should the girl sue, I guess, but this hasn’t happened.
Yes doschicos, there are many such facets in law. One could also say it’s a pure legal fiction that a 15/18 yr old can’t legally have sex, but I happen to agree with that one personally! Some states do allow it tho and labrie would’ve walked in those states.
@Consolation, I didn’t mean to twist anything you said. Sorry if you think I did.
@doschicos I think HER underwear had to come off in order for HIS sperm and DNA to get onto the inside seam of the crotch of HER underwear.
“When I was a kid, high school was 9th grade through 12th. 9th grade was NOT junior high. The only thing that has changed is that there is now middle school instead of jr high, and middle school has grades 6-8”
Both systems coexisted. I moved from a PA system with 5-8 middle school and 9-12 high school to a MO system with 7-9 junior high and 10-12 senior high. It’s just whatever your region did at the time.
@prospect1. I appreciate your balanced comments on this thread, but think you are using the word promiscuous imprecisely. It clearly implies having many sexual partners. She may be sexually precocious, but as far as we know, not promiscuous. The evidence definitely points to promiscuous behavior on his part, though.