Agree. I don’t know about “lured” as my guess is there are 15 year olds that would be quite flattered by the attention and don’t need much “luring” and are probably naive about how things can transpire but definitely doubt this was an isolated case of a senior attempting to score with a cute freshman or sophomore. The gaming and sharing of information and if that were known to administration at the school is appalling since these kids were in their charge and this theoretically could have been nipped in the bud whenever it became “known.”
I can’t believe we are even discussing the career and marriage prospects of Chessy Prout. But since we are, she will be absolutely fine. Seems to me the inquiry might more rightfully be focused on the career and marriage prospects of Owen Labrie.
I’m sure he’ll be fine. Even sociopath murderer Scott Peterson gets love letters. Labrie supposedly has a girlfriend who attends Harvard. There always seems to be a loyal female willing to stand by and support her man, no matter the crime.
Forgiveness comes easier to some no matter the circumstances.
Yep @Nrdsb4 no doubt about it.
Now Owen’s lawyers are going on the offensive in response to the victim’s interview:
“We were troubled that the statements she made went unchallenged,” said Rancourt. “We were troubled that, when she’s interviewed and she makes statements purporting to know what the jury was thinking, that that statement goes unchallenged in the media, and that then it’s picked up that he’s a rapist, that he’s a predator, that he’s this horrible person, when the facts are that he was found innocent of that conduct. And when you’re innocent, you’re innocent, bottom line.”
I’d like to explain to Jaye Rancourt that Labrie was found “not guilty” on the more serious charge – not, as she put it, “innocent.” He is not “innocent.”
The family should have expected that. Of course they are going to nitpick every word she said. They have asked for a new trial and there is an appeal. Why they chose now, if ever, to speak is something I don’t understand. I’m not a lawyer so don’t know if her interview with NBC would come into play in a new trial or appeal. I stand by my opinion that they should never have gone public and there might be very little to gain from it other than a potential payout from the school in their lawsuit.
They were about to be outed by the school. I bet that is what is largely responsible for them coming out, and coming out now.
They can’t control Labrie, his lawyers, and their desire for an appeal. I really think Labrie and his lawyers are just digging themselves further and further into a hole. The more they protest his guilt, the more we will remember his name and all his ill deeds.
Yes this boy continues to row upstream and surround himself with people who convince him it’s a good idea. Keeping this matter churning in the press does not help him at all. He is not a particularly sympathetic defendant. If it were someone close to me I would have him serve his 12 months and then start working on a college degree.
I would really like to understand his thinking in why he believes a new trial will turn out any differently.
And it just appears to be a revolving door with his attorneys. Last I heard there was a motion pending to disqualify Jaye Rancourt as his counsel based on ineffective representation. Now she’s back? What happened to Carney? I can’t keep track anymore.
Hah I think it was Microsoft last year that determined people’s attention spans were shorter than a goldfish.
“If it were someone close to me I would have him serve his 12 months and then start working on a college degree.”
And I seriously doubt he’d serve a whole 12 months, or even more than 6 months. I’m sure it would be a reduced sentence.
@HarvestMoon1 IIRC the NH Supreme Court disqualified Rancourt from litigating the ineffective assistance claim b/c she was co-counsel with Carney during the trial - that’s why the other attorney was with her at the interview. I think Carney turned everything over to Rancourt.
But I think she still has one claim going forward? It’s hard to keep track, but I recall that they ruled against her on the ineffectiveness claim.
Rancourt’s interest in staying in the spotlight seems to be aligning with Labrie’s inability to accept that he’s not getting away with it. His judgment - and his parents’ judgment, assuming they’re good with what he’s trying to do – is not good. I wonder if he’s delusional and thinks that once he clears his name, he can claim his place at Harvard or another highly selective college and live the dream?
I can’t keep track anymore either. And yes I agree the only one’s benefitting at this point from all the press is the attorneys. To me all this maneuvering is a colossal waste of time.
Well, this whole case has become so drawn out and complicated that it’ll need to be made into a miniseries instead of a Lifetime movie. 
I’m sure the LaBrie’s family and friends think it’s worth it to get the computer luring charge gone…that was the only charge that kept him on the sex registry. I thought the jury was spot on with the sexual conduct with a minor charge and got it wrong with the luring using the laptop. I believe there are still two cases…the appeal and then the motion for a retrial.
I looked up the wikipedia article on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel
It is a tough claim to make successfully. The article notes that (to paraphrase the wikipedia article slightly) if the defense attorney falls asleep during the trial, is intoxicated, is senile, or has discussed delusions with the jury, that is not enough to support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Labrie had a defense team of well-qualified lawyers, and as far as I know, none of those conditions applied, and they wouldn’t amount to ineffective assistance of counsel even if they did.
Someone who is legally trained could tell me whether the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington (1984) might apply here. According to wikipedia, the court said that “failure to inform a defendant of the direct consequences of a sentence qualifies as ineffective assistance of counsel, but failure to inform of collateral consequences of criminal charges does not.” But it seems unlikely to me that Labrie was not told of any of the direct consequences of a sentence, in this case.
When it comes to the issue of luring someone by computer, I assume that if there were applicable exceptions written into the law Carney would have used them, as the lead counsel for the defense. Have you looked at the law, momofthreeboys?
Personally, I don’t see much latitude for Labrie on that charge. On the other hand, I don’t think in general that it is reasonable to put an 18-year-old on a sex offender registry for life (what momofthreeboys euphemistically refers to as the “sex registry”). If I set the law, the number of years that a convicted person would spend on the registry would depend on the nature of the crime, and might be set by a judge in sentencing, much as a jail/prison term is set by a judge in some cases. Labrie’s reported use of the term “pre-pubescent” (perhaps not hyphenated) in online communication is of considerable concern to me, however.
If the motion for a retrial succeeds, it will probably be quite difficult to assemble a jury anywhere in the Northeast, because–I think–the jury members must not have formed a settled opinion on the case beforehand. Someone with legal training could correct this by posting the actual condition that the jury members must meet. It would be an . . . um . . . interesting group of people who had not heard about this situation, and not reached conclusions about it.
I have not looked at the specific law regarding the use of the computer for luring and that particular state. But I can speculate as many before me have, that it was probably a well-intended law to protect children from pedophiles and child enticement. In my opinion, it’s a stretch to apply that between 15 and 18 year olds so that part is interesting to me from a legal perspective. There are cases around teen “sexting” and teen behavior so I assume a challenge would evolve around those cases.
But probably none of them involving the defendant’s reported use of the term “pre-pubescent” (hyphenated or not, not sure). It has been reported in connection with this case.
Don’t know. The only things that I didn’t agree with in this entire situation is that particular charge and the result of the sex(offender) registry. My problem with the sex(offender) registries that it is impossible to determine whether or not the person is a pedophile maniac after small children, or whether the person was a 18 year old who was in love with his 15 year old girlfriend and was convicted of statutory rape or less or someone who abused their spouse. One size fits all does not work, is over used, does not help people that live in the area of the offender and may cause unnecessary hysteria. Again the laws and intent were good, the execution of the concept flawed.