<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly!!!</p>
<p>How are fingers not a foreign object???</p>
<p>With that said, I’ll second the above comment.</p>
<p>Roman - this is how foreign object is defined - (9) “Foreign object” means anything used in commission of a sexual act other than the person of the actor.</p>
<p>My expertise as a lawyer tells me that there is no lawyer, in Kentucky or anywhere else, who would like to take this libel claim in front of a judge or jury. I don’t need to read the exact wording of the Kentucky rape definition to feel comfortable making that statement.</p>
<p>I guess there might be some lawyers who would do it. They won’t be taking the case on a contingency basis, though.</p>
<p>I know I’m as responsible as anyone else in this thread for getting off-topic, but could we get back to the policy questions?</p>
<p>One of the defendants spoke to the police after being arrested without talking to his parents or an attorney. The other had an attorney who told him to go in and answer all the questions the police asked him and did NOT go with him to the interview.</p>
<p>In at least some states, the first interview would be suppressed. You can’t talk to a minor without contacting his/her legal guardian and giving the guardian a chance to be present during the interview and to hire an attorney for the minor. Based on comments from a Kentucky website frequented by attorneys , that’s not the case in Kentucky. In the second case, I do not know why any attorney would allow a defendant to talk to police without being present at the interview. </p>
<p>Do you think police should be able to rely on a waiver of legal rights by a minor who waived them without consulting his parents or an attorney? I am really bothered by this. He was 17…not 12…but still…Reality is that many kids are really reluctant to tell their parents when they are arrested. The law in at least some states recognizes that and provides that the police must notify the parents before questioning a minor. </p>
<p>Second, if the boys were told juvenile proceedings were confidential, is it fair to open the proceedings? Look, I think Savannah should have the right to say anything to anybody about “the incident.” That doesn’t mean that I think the entire world should be able to read the statements the defendants made to police. Again, I recognize this happened in large part because of Mejia’s (the attorney for Zehnder’s) comments. But…should the attorney’s behavior justify opening the file, especially for opening the file for the kid whose attorney did not appear on Nightline or give interviews to the Huffington Post?</p>
<p>The kids were apparently picked up at school for questioning. I do not know if they had been informed before that of any police interest in the matter (although I suspect yes, if one had an attorney), which leads to me that both had the ability to discuss with their parents, and I find it difficult to beleive that the parents did not tell them not to answer any questions --unless the kids lied to their parents, and just said we were at a party where kids were drinking. Hard to say. In any event these kids were 16 when they were picked up, and no one has put forth any evidence that they were mentally deficient, so I do not see issue with them being questioned, if that is KY law. </p>
<p>As to opening the proceedings, while in general, I do not agree with, in this case, there are many questions -</p>
<ol>
<li> Was the plea unusually light? If so why? Could incarceration have been an option? Did the prosecutor tell the victim it was not an option? Why not?</li>
<li> Did the prosecutor tank the case becuase of his strong alumni ties with the kids’ school (not just alumn, but strong contributor)? Did the prosecutor know one of the kids’ mothers, who is also very active at school? Did the prosecutor ask for the case (rumor is he did).<br></li>
<li> The victim asked for a list of recipients of the pictures. Why did the prosecutor not pursue this?</li>
</ol>
<p>I think the judge who opened it thought the entire situation stunk, and the lawyer taking it to the press may have just been an excuse. Yes, the issues above could have been resolved without opening case, but at this point it would seem that most people agree with the victim, that Frey and Zehnder are getting off way to easy, and the senior judge is concerned about lack of faith in the system.</p>
<p>ETA – from reading the police statements given by the boys, it does not appear that they gave the statements in exchange for juvenile offender status. Those statements could have been made public if the prosecutor decided to charge them as adults.</p>
<p>I think Zehnder should apologize to Dietrich, and then both should turn around and file a civil suit against Frey and his family. If seems that while Zehnder would have been content to a light sentence, he agree to stop sharing the photos. He could have done more to make this go away, but Dietrich’s stance was mostly in response to Frey’s behavior. </p>
<p>Frey is the one who ruined everything for everyone. If he had agreed to stop sharing the photos and had been contrite, this all would have gone away. Not really what I call justice, but Dietrich would have been able to move on. She didn’t ruit anybody’s life - Frey did, and he did a thorough job of it too. </p>
<p>If the DA volunteered for this case, I wonder how he found out about it. Did Frey’s father alert him so he could volunteer? Could that be considered tampering in any way? Seems to be a significant amount of influence peddling gong on.</p>
<p>CTS, rumor is that the prosecutor volunteered via an email. I do not know if its overt influence peddling, or rather just a mind set of who should be protected. I agree, Frey could have made this go away. I get the feeling that Frey’s family is more well off (his dad is at BlackRock). One has to wonder if or why not Zehdner’s dad didnt go to Frey’s dad and say get those *#@ pictures deleted.</p>
<p>I’m not following this thread very closely, but once the photos were sent out, there’s not much anyone can do to contain them. I get they should have been deleted, and don’t know why someone would refuse to do so. But, isn’t it a bit a moot issue, since once they are out there, they are out there to be distributed multiple times? Disgusting behavior by these boys. And how they didn’t just shrink from shame and do whatever they could to make amends is beyond me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not only that, but as of the date this thread first appeared, Frey STILL had a youtube of himself playing lacrosse up for public viewing. It boggles my mind. Does he not get that it would behoove him to maintain a low profile? Does he seriously think anyone is going to recruit him, in the year in which George Huguely is convicted and sentenced? I strongly doubt it. Any lacrosse coach who presented him to an admissions committee would surely be greeted with disbelief.</p>
<p>Edit: Checked. Yes, it is still there.</p>
<p>Ohiomom, it may not have been effectual, but to think that Fry wouldnt do anything that the girl asked for (delete pictures) is the height of arrogance.</p>
<p>As stated in post 203, foreign object is “other than the person of the actor”. This means that fingers are not objects.</p>
<p>Thus, the boys did not rape the girl under Ky law and calling them rapists is defamation. The boys engaged in very bad behavior but they did not engage in rape of the first, second, or third degree under Ky law.</p>
<p>razorsharp, hasn’t jonri posted repeatedly that Savannah DID NOT call them rapists?</p>
<p>Is your point that other people are defaming them? If so, too god damned bad.</p>
<p>Razor, give it up. She did not call them rapists undery KY law. If the FBI defines this as rape, its hard to say that under a reasonable definition of rape, maybe not your definition, they are rapists.</p>
<p>ETA – agree, she said they assaulted her. They admited that. She also said something like if this is what I get for reporting a rape . . ., but did not say they raped her. Thin line. Kinda like scumball attorney for scumball boys.</p>
<p>Do you think calling them rapists harms their reputations more than describing their acts in detail does? Again, it may be technically true that they aren’t “rapists” under KY law, but it would be insane (in my opinion) for anybody to try to bring a defamation lawsuit under this set of facts.</p>
<p>It would be like somebody claiming he was defamed by being called a burglar, when he had only committed robbery. Only worse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not sure what you are suggesting jonri. The case pretty clearly distinguishes between rape which requires a foreign object and sexual abuse for digital penetration. It’s an unpublished opinion so it is not precedent. Do you have a case you can cite that says under Ky law digital penetration is rape? Maybe there is one out there.</p>
<p>Razor, can you give us any link to anything that says that the girl said that Frey and Zehnder raped her?</p>
<p>Razor,</p>
<p>The argument you raise is extraneous. That said…</p>
<p>I am not admitted to the bar in Kentucky. I cannot give advice about Kentucky law. Again, I would suggest that you talk to an attorney who is admitted to the bar in Kentucky and ask him or her if your understanding of the decision is correct. I would suggest that you refrain from stating what the case “clearly” says until you get an attorney to explain it to you. </p>
<p>In the meantime, I’ve posted a link to the decision so that those who wish to can read it for themselves or who want an attorney to explain its holding to them can do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have not claimed that the girl called anyone rapists. My responses are to the posters on this thread who falsely call the boys rapists. They are not rapists because they did not commit rape under Ky law. It’s that simple. Rape is a crime defined by law and not by people’s personal opinion or even some definition claimed to be from the FBI. </p>
<p>I think it was Julian Assange who was being prosecuted for rape in his home country because he did not use a condom. It seems silly to me to call that rape, but if the criminal law where he allegedly engaged in that behavior defines rape that way and he is convicted of doing so, then he would be a rapist.</p>
<p>My responses are to the posters on this thread who falsely call the boys rapists. They are not rapists because they did not commit rape under Ky law. It’s that simple. Rape is a crime defined by law and not by people’s personal opinion or even some definition claimed to be from the FBI. </p>
<hr>
<p>Says you. And someone did give a link to the FBI definition. I disagree with you. I would consider these Frey and Zehnder rapists.</p>