<p>I agree with deega123. Some comments seem to be holding SD responsible for the assault in some way. She was not responsible for her assault. She AND the boys should not have drank. It was illegal. But she was in no way responsible for her assault. I still think several comments implied that she was and I have stated it in prior posts.</p>
<p>deega, EXACTLY, thank you.</p>
<p>I want to read jonri’s post in detail but I am in a meeting (or about to be). But I want to ask deega123 to consider whether there is anything in 07DAD’s posts or Hunt’s to justify kayf assaulting their character? If you want to talk about etiquette, can we start there?</p>
<p>Also, I am not reading the “but” in these posts so much as I am reading “and,” which I consider to be a meaningful logical distinction.</p>
<p>kayf, based on my own reading, that’s not quite what happened. </p>
<p>From what I can figure out, Judge Angela McCormick Bisig is not “superior” to Judge McDonald.They seem to be at the same level. Bisig’s opinion, the first of the documents in the links, does say that McDonald did not issue a gag order that went beyond what happened in court. However, that opinion is based on Judge McDonald’s communication to Judge Bisig that she didn’t do so. Judge Bisig’s opinion also says that even if Judge McDonald did so, such an order had to be in writing and it wasn’t clear that a complaining witness, who is not a party to the proceeding, could have such an order issued against her. </p>
<p>At the time Judge Bisig’s opinion was issued, the tape was not yet public. It was only made public, as your post notes, after the Courier moved to open the contempt proceedings.</p>
<p>Part I: </p>
<p>I know NOTHING about juvenile law and NOTHING about Kentucky law, but from what I can figure out, this is what happened.</p>
<p>Apparently–just my guess–Kentucky juvenile court does not use a single judge assignment system. In effect, that means that if you need to get something decided urgently, you go before the “judge of the day”–my term, NOT a legal one. This judge hears motions. </p>
<p>After the hearing you can listen to above, Savannah twittered the boys’s names. The following day the boys’ attorneys went to court. They gave the prosecutor notice of the hearing and he showed up. NEITHER SAVANNAH NOR HER PARENTS WERE GIVEN NOTICE OF THIS HEARING. Judge Bisig held a preliminary hearing on this motion. During this, the boys’ attorneys asked that Savannah be held in “indirect” contempt of court. The judge asked the prosecutor what Judge McDonald had said as well. Judge Bisig said he would have to ask Judge McDonald what she’d actually ordered. At this point, Judge Bisig appointed a public defender to represent Savannah at a hearing on the contempt motion. </p>
<p>In papers filed after this hearing, Savannah’s attorneys argued that Judge Bisig had acted wrongfully by hearing ex parte testimony about what had happened without any rep of Savannah being there. They also asked that the prosecutor be removed, in part because he had participated in the preliminary contempt hearing without giving Savannah notice of the proceeding and had in effect testified against her.</p>
<p>Judge Bisig said she hadn’t done anything wrong, but she would nevertheless recuse herself from the decision, and sent the case back to McDonald for a hearing on the contempt motion. That hearing was to be held after Savannah was notified.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I would point out that if Hunt or 07DAD had made this post, that they would immediately be accused of wanting to strip Savannah of her right to free speech.</p>
<p>Regarding deega’s post and the comments on dress: I actually find the question of what a victim was wearing insulting to the victim. Imagine one of your daughters being assaulted and having to answer the question “What were you wearing?” There is a current thread I linked. Imagine a poster asking that question. </p>
<p>It is not uncommon for a victim of abuse, especially domestic abuse to erroneously wonder, “What did I do to cause this?”. The fact is the victim is not to blame, is not responsible and did not cause the assault.</p>
<p>Part II:</p>
<p>At this point, the Courier newspaper intervened and asked that the contempt proceeding be opened to the public. At or before the hearing on this motion, the boys’ attorneys decided not to pursue the contempt motion and withdrew it. Judge Bisig granted the Courier’s motion to open the proceeding. In fact, she went further and opened the entire file and held that the sentencing would be opened, but the boys can’t be filmed, etc. She also denied the motion by Savannah’s attorney–by this time, Savannah had gotten a private attorney–to disqualify the prosecutor, stating that Savannah as complaining witness has no standing (or, simplifying, right) to have any input on the choice of prosecutor. Judge Bisig then issued an opinion to that effect, which you can read in the earlier links.</p>
<p>Jonri, you may be right, but Bisgs title is Chief District Judge Angela McCormick Bisig and McDonald’s seems to be District Court Judge, so I came to the conclusion that Bisig is somewhat superior. Yes, I agree the Bisig order says that McDonald says she did not issue a gag order on Dietrich. It seems that is at best not clear from the tape.</p>
<p>“And I would point out that if Hunt or 07DAD had made this post, that they would immediately be accused of wanting to strip Savannah of her right to free speech.”</p>
<p>That is the process. It’s the law, but people are free to disagree with it. Time will tell the outcome.</p>
<p>Did the original prosecutor withdraw ultimately? Wasn’t the prosecutor an alum of the same Catholic school where the boys attended and were key members of the lacrosse team?</p>
<p>It is hard to not see a serious potential conflict on the part of such a prosecutor.</p>
<p>Is there some evidence that SD did not get told of the proposed plea bargain terms. Or is it just SD and the prosecutor disputing what happened in this regard?</p>
<p>If the prosecutor did not follow Kentucky law on victim’s rights and inform SD in advance, that’s 2 stikes (and perhaps the game) for that prosecutor.</p>
<p>As of yet, the original prosecutor has not withdrawn. The head of the prosecutor’s office said they can not monitor where every defendant/prosecutor goes/went to school. I thought that was disengenous at best, given the level of involvement with the school (prosecutor donor/on major committes, boys athletes on varsity teams, one mom head of mom’s association). If they didnt know then, they know now. Also rumor that the prosecutor asked for the case. In an email</p>
<p>No evidence either way, as far as I know what prosecutor told defendant, but imho, the way he is handling it is very anti-Savannah (calling her delusional, not mistaken).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m fully aware that it is the process. That wasn’t my point. </p>
<p>On another note, I think that the prosecutor’s office is making a very big PR mistake–as well as an obvious ethical mistake–in not having the original prosecutor recuse himself. Lawyers are supposed to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and there is far more than that here.</p>
<p>I stand corrected. Judge Bisig may be a more important judge than Judge McDonald. However, the basic point I was trying to make is that there wasn’t really an “appeal” here. Judge Bisig is not in any sort of appellate court. She’s a judge in the same court as Judge McDonald. </p>
<p>As for post #566, if I failed to make myself clear, I am NOT advocating what the law SHOULD be. I was only trying to explain that USUALLY in the US legal system, you can NOT defy a court order, as Savannah did, and then argue in your defense that the order was unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. </p>
<p>I thought that was an important point to make.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You didn’t fail to make yourself clear. </p>
<p>I was suggesting that every remark made by Hunt and 07DAD is interpreted as evidence of evil intent by several posters on this thread, and there is no doubt in my mind that that is exactly what would have happened had either of them dared to bring forward the same very pertinent information that you did.</p>
<p>Jonri, I agree it wasnt a real “appeal” and I misspoke haha or miswrote before. BUT, it resulted in the court being able to finesse any correction of prior act.</p>
<p>kayf–here’s my previous post on the issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which has been said OVER AND OVER and no one on this thread disagrees with.</p>
<p>
You might want to refresh your memory on what happened early in this thread when somebody made this point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very well said. Whether Savannah Dietrich was the local Girl Scout or the town slut and anywhere in between – for that matter, whether she chose to drink or had had something slipped to her in a diet Coke that rendered her unconscious – does not excuse or minimize the appalling behavior of the boys. Why is this so hard to understand?</p>