<p>The fact that this keeps being referred to as a “prank” is downright offensive. This is just like a plot line of a “The Closer” episode, only in that one, the victim is killed by the rapist. </p>
<p>Amazingly, a judge initially ruled against the rape charges, saying he just didn’t “feel” that the perpetrator meant any real harm. Fortunately, a second judge reinstated the charges.</p>
<p>This woman went to a whole lot of trouble to harass these new owners (a young family who had a baby shortly after closing on the house) before finally crossing the line to something which could have caused irreparable harm. I’m thinking she’s either mentally ill or just incredibly mean.</p>
<p>In The Closer episode, the rapist, believing he had been specifically solicited to do so, became angry when the woman resisted and hit him with a lamp. He ended up killing her accidentally (I think by holding her down into the bed she asphyxiated?). Something like that could easily have happened here. </p>
<p>The woman KNEW that her ad could have resulted in this poor innocent woman being raped at minimum. It’s beyond annoying that she and her lawyer are calling this a “prank.” Sending magazines to the residence, while mean spirited, was essentially harmless and might be accurately described as a prank. Soliciting rapists to enter the home and to interpret “No” as “yes” is not even remotely in the same ball park as a “prank.”</p>
<p>I agree that the word “prank” is not appropriate in describing this. Very upsetting to read about these things.</p>
<p>There is a tv show called “Punked” or something of the sort, of which I saw some really funny Candid Camera type episodes. One where a group of pro athletes went to a restaurant, and were surrounded with people getting huge, oversized succulent, sumptuous entrees. When they order, they get miniscule portions and the waiter and everyone pretended they could not see any difference.</p>
<p>A year or so ago, I caught some episodes that I did not find funny at all, and could have resulted in harm. Even when no physical harm was done, they broached subjects that were not at all humorous, and should not remotely come within a joke or prank range. Some things are just too serious for that.</p>
<p>However, in this case, I don’t believe for a instant that these were even intended as pranks but as assaults. I’m surprised a judge let this go and that the final decision was split the way it was regarding going after the perp who should be ordered to go for mental evaluation and follow up along with criminal charges. What a nasty,sick person she is.</p>
<p>My god, this story is mind-boggling! The perp must be mentally ill–a narcissist? a sociopath?-- and she should be both jailed for some time at least AND be required to undergo court-supervised therapy while on probabtion for a good long time.</p>
<p>I don’t know anything about stalking laws, but I would think this would violate them, also.</p>
<p>I agree that calling this barrage of harassment–and the solicitation of rape in particular–a “prank” is ludicrous.</p>
<p>^^^^Another scary thought is that she is the mother of a “disabled child.” I don’t know the specifics of the child’s problems, but can you imagine having a mother like that?!</p>
<p>Ordering magazines under someone else’s name/identity and then refusing to pay for them could damage the victim’s credit record. That’s a tort and actionable in court. Most victims wouldn’t bother but if the “prankster” ordered several subscriptions we could be easily talking about a few hundred dollars, which any collection agency would chase. This woman needs some time in a jail cell.</p>
<p>Jail time for Rowe is surely warranted. The court supervised therapy that Consolation suggested is a good idea, too. I also think some additional investigation is in order. She’s a county employee who tried to get the new homeowner’s house reassessed; who went along with that and why? </p>
<p>Scary thing is that there is no mention made that the people bidding on the house did anything remotely wrong in the process of getting this home. The mere fact that they “won” was enough to send this woman into a vicious, vindictive course of action which required a lot of time, energy, and thought.</p>
<p>Makes you wonder how she has dealt with with losses in the past. Is this a pattern of behavior or did she crack under the pressure of raising a disabled child? Sociopath? Borderline? Narcissist? She definitely needs a mental health evaluation.</p>
<p>Wow! That judge needs to be re-evaluated too! These actions by this sicko are clearly criminal and could have had much worse consequences. I hope a civil action against her can help the poor woman who was terrorized by this nutcase! Can only feel for anyone who has had any dealings with this extremely mentally ill woman.</p>
<p>I have read about exes doing this sort of thing. Kathy Rowe must be an extremely dangerous woman to engage in this sort of behavior because a business deal didn’t go her way.</p>
<p>I hope our courts and lawmakers can find some real uniformity and structure on these internet crimes. Some judges, like the initial one in this case, don’t seem to understand AT ALL the terrible harm that can occur as the result of a sociopath tapping away at a keyboard.</p>
<p>My brother was a victim of a magazine and other regularly recurring orders many years ago. My father died that year–first year he was in college, and he did not cope with a lot of things. Yes, it hurt his credit and hurt him. </p>
<p>I agree that stalking and other charges should have been filed. </p>
<p>It boggles the mind that ANYONE would buy into the attempt to trivialize her actions by characterizing them as pranks, much less A JUDGE. What the hell is wrong with him?!?!</p>
<p>I think that’s likely true. One of the issues in these cases is that the person is attempting to do the maximum harm to someone without detection. What you cannot know is how their mental calculus is weighted. By that, I mean that they might do even more harmful things to someone if they thought they could avoid personal injury and detection.</p>