@quantmech, yes, I agree with you that Labrie must be considered to be innocent of any charges for which he was not convicted - including any speculative crime of sex with a 12 year old.
I’m not saying the judge must have found him innocent of such a charge, or even that the judge must have considered his guilt or innocence of that supposed crime in this context. I’m saying that the judge had at his disposal all of the comments in the FB texts, and I am presuming that he did not leap to any conclusions about sex with a 12 year old. I am also presuming that if he found those particular comments to be at all credible, he could have taken them into consideration when deciding upon a sentence.
In any event, I personally don’t give those particular comments credence (about the 12 year old); my take from the FB texts is that Labrie liked to be shocking and inappropriate, and seemed to think it was funny or interesting to his peers to talk in a really perverse way. Certainly the one boy he was conversing with (forget his name) didn’t seem that shocked and didn’t disconnect the conversation; egging him on in a way, seemed to me. So, Labrie found some audience for his gross comments (some of which were not his original comments, by the way, but were lifted from a popular, albeit very vulgar, comic). I think he was in an environment of boys who at best didn’t mind the way he acted, and at worst egged it on. I find myself wondering why none of the boys at the school reported Labrie’s FB comments or tried to wave Labrie off the track in a formal way. No, instead we hear that some of these boys continued to harass this girl even after charges were brought. Pretty sick culture, IMO.
All that said, as far as we know none of the other boys actually went so far as to engage in sexual activities with an underage girl…I repeat, “as far as we know”…I would not be surprised to learn that other such things occurred at that school and were either unreported or paid off/covered up. However, I’m not ready to leap to the conclusion that Labrie will be a repeat sex offender until the proper studies are done.
Now, I have to get back to this Halloween party I’m at, where I am attempting to pull off a silly costume I have no business wearing…Happy Halloween to all!
I wanted to learn more. As Osprey wrote, there was nothing new. What I have liked about this thread is reading the lawyers opinions and people quoting local,newspapers.
I wouldn’t want to diagnose Owen from afar, especially as he is still young. Teens are notorious for lacking judgment. Still, among my son’s friends and all my male young patients, I have never encountered a “player”. Owen had it all, with looks, athletic ability, smarts, leadership, but following rules? (His peers too).
Who knows the man he could have become.
There is no smoking gun here. Both kids did things many kids do and behaved poorly. He got punished because the law says he should have not done what he did and the jury believed it met the test of sexual misconduct. I can’t imagine there is much more to this story. I did not watch Dateline but can’t imagine what the angle of the story was except that it was a private elite prep school.
You are right - both kids did things they should not have given their ages is a better statement. The law says he was older and should have known better. The law says she has a right to press charges which she did. The only issue I see is if the laws regarding computer stalking should apply to two high school kids and that is being appealed. The system works. Personally I find it ironic that 18 is considered an adult, but only when society finds it convenient to consider 18 an adult . And for me that has to do with all sorts of things not just this case.
I watched Dateline. Only thing new to me was defense counsel’s statement that they are appealing all the convictions. “Best” outcome, according to defense, would be dismissal of computer felony and retrial of misdemeanors.
If they are appealing misdemeanors, I doubt Labrie will turn himself in to start serving sentence. Again, I’m only following press accounts like the rest of you and don’t practice criminal law, but…I don’t see basis for overturning misdemeanor convictions. If Labrie is given false hope that they will be and doesn’t turn himself in and start serving time until the appeals are decided, he’s only going to make this worse for himself.
I also wanted to comment on the claim that the mother is going on the “media circuit.” AFAIK, she gave one brief statement, probably less than 2 minutes long, to NBC. That same clip was played on the Today Show and Dateline. The mother’s identity is not revealed. She appears as a blacked out image.
It is obvious that Dateline would have done the show with or without that clip from mom. Carney, his legal partner, the woman Labrie stayed with in New Jersey and a few of his friends were there saying that Labrie is a good guy. Carney kept calling this a consensual encounter. The only “voices” speaking on behalf of the victim were the prosecutor and the victim’s mom.
In those circumstances, i.e., knowing that the show would air whether or not I contributed to it, I think I would have chosen to speak out as the victim’s mother did.
The NY State registry seems to list sex offenders both where they live and where they work. When I checked my zip code, I found several employed here. So, they do get jobs.
@jonri, thanks for Dateline summary. Interesting that the defense best outcome on the misdemeanors is retrial. That would explain why Labrie didn’t offer an apology during sentencing (which in itself might have angered the judge, no?). Very aggressive and very risky strategy. There’s a fine line between idealism (“I’m not guilty because there was no penetration”) and delusion (“I’m not guilty because there was no penetration”).
How often are misdemeanors with no apparent prosecutorial misconduct overturned? And what price is Labrie paying with this continuing to be in the news and putting off his college education? It sounds like he must be completely convinced that there was no penetration for him to be willing to go through the trial again to see if a different jury would buy what he is selling.
The damage to his reputation is done - I don’t see how a redo could help him in that respect because even if that scenario comes to pass and he is acquitted, his name is still mud in many quarters. (I know it would get rid of the pesky sex offender registry requirement).
Unless his legal team is working pro bono, I wonder if he has a wealthy benefactor (who maybe wants to undo the collateral damage St. Paul’s felt?) paying the bills.
EDIT - unrelated, just noticed this on Twitter:
If you rearrange the letters in “Owen Labrie”, you get “Beware Loin”
@GnocchiB There has to be a reason to overturn the verdict. Thus far, I don’t see one here. Reasons would include prosecutorial misconduct–things like failing to turn over prior statements made by the victim which are inconsistent with her trial trial testimony; a trial judge’s decision not to admit evidence favorable to the defendant proferred by the defense which an appeals court decides should have been admitted; admission of evidence proferred by the prosecutor which the defense objected to which was prejudicial; juror misconduct–remember the Vandy case? If it turns out a juror knew a member of the victim’s family or went on his/her fact finding mission, e.g., decided to climb up and check out that mechanical room on his/her own. Lots of thing can be jury misconduct but again I haven’t heard of any here.
While I suspect I would have done the same thing if Labrie were my kid, remember he’s 18. He probably would have qualified to have a free defense from legal aid. I don’t know the law in New Hampshire but in many states, just as a parent has no obligation to pay college tuition, a parent has no obligation to pay legal fees for a “child” 18 or over. It was Mom’s choice to pay for a high powered attorney like Carney–or any attorney at all.
One of the many reasons I thought the shrink’s report was unimpressive was that he lauded Labrie for helping to pay “his father’s rent.” In reality, Mom was paying Labrie’s legal fees and he bought debit cards and mailed them to her, or so said the woman who housed him in New Jersey and gave him a job. So, if Mom was paying $500 a week towards Labrie’s legal fees and Labrie was sending her $100 a week --I don’t know the actual numbers–I don’t see this as “helping his” mother with her “rent.” Spin --spin–spin.
To followup on jonri’s post … I agree that they had enough for a show without the mom’s brief appearance. In her case I might do it as well. They also had a victim’s rights advocate that spoke generally on behalf of all victims.
One thing I found interesting is that a former St. Paul’s grad had a role in crafting the law that resulted in Owen’s felony conviction.
The presumption of innocence is an obligation of the government, not the public. I don’t have any guess about LaBrie’s likelihood to reoffend, but I think it’s fair game to share opinions if you got 'em. We’re entitled to have reactions and predictions about important matters in the news.
I personly think there’s every chance he would have reoffended or at least added to the pretty horrific sexual statistics at Harvard. http://harvardmagazine.com/2015/09/sexual-conduct-at-harvard Maybe this will be a wake-up call for him. Though I haven’t seen any sign of it.
Wow, I noticed that the girl’s last name was not blacked out in the report exhibit linked upthread that contained Labrie’s texts/ FB messages. I googled it with St. Paul school and her full name and class year came up, as well as pictures of her. So, for anyone who picks up on that, her identity is now public.
Now that I’ve read his texts and FB messages, my thoughts and feelings about this case are more conflicted.
I was dismayed to read SPS Rector (headmaster) Michael Hirschfeld’s statement on Oct 29 tucked into a corner of the SPS website: " this trial has been deeply painful for all of us…but most especially for the two people involved ." The Judge explained to Owen Labrie that he was not a victim. Guess Hirschfeld’s thinks it better not to try to draw any distinction between Labrie and the girl he targeted. I’m amazed that SPS alums aren’t speaking out for a new school administration.
I think my thoughts on the “reoffending” changed once I read the texts/emails. The manner in which he lured this girl is right there in black and white. The first romantic message where he feigned admiration for her and the endearing invitation to share the “view” of campus with him. He knew exactly what girls her age would respond to. The rest of the messages, along with his professed hatred of girls are infuriating, but equally frightening to me as a woman and the mother of a daughter. This is a" wolf in sheep’s clothing." And something a young and unsophisticated girl is going to have a hard time discerning.
In any event this boy can only benefit from further psychological evaluation given the nature of his own writings. Had this family not found the courage to come forward, it is easy to imagine he would have found himself in similar circumstances a few years down the road. When you consider his general sentiments about women and the current culture on college campuses today, it would seem inevitable that his feelings would have found expression in unhealthy and perhaps unlawful ways.
I can’t help thinking that Carney is trying to help himself more than his client in pushing for all these appeals. We all know that LaBrie would have been better off with the earlier plea bargain and his former lawyer. I can see appealing the computer stalking conviction, but everything else too? It doesn’t seem in LaBrie’s best interest to keep dragging this out with a “slim to none” chance of things being overturned.
@HarvestMoon1 and @mathmom, I think you both may be right. Until I read these sentencing reports, I wanted to believe that Labrie, as an 18 yr old kid, made a grave, singular mistake. Having read his FB messages and texts, I now think that he as a college kid, in all likelihood, would not have changed his attitude about women and about sex. The only thing that would have changed in college circumstances is that his conquests would probably be at least 17 years old.
“It doesn’t seem in LaBrie’s best interest to keep dragging this out with a “slim to none” chance of things being overturned.”
Pretty much anyone with any resources will appeal a guilty jury verdict. It’s customary. A trial is a human process, and any competent lawyer should be able to find some errors that are at least worth arguing about.
@RenaissanceMom - The victim’s name is most definitely NOT in the State’s Sentencing Memo. I see the name you are thinking of and that is another person most likely targeted from the list (I’m surprised they kept the name in there anyway) but I can assure you it is NOT the victim. It does, however, speak to a pattern by the defendant.
What was Labrie’s “slaying” count in the contest? Well into the double digits? Since he didn’t seem overly concerned about consent with this victim, he likely wasn’t overly concerned with consent with some of his other “slays” either. This victim had the guts to go to the police-- and apparently went through hell afterwards-- but were there other victims that didn’t make a formal accusation?