Maryville rape case - special prosecutor named

FriendlyFire

Codex WMDicanious
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
21,761
Location
Sydney
Maryville rape case - special prosecutor named

On the heels of pressure from state politicians and a newspaper expose, a special prosecutor in Missouri has been appointed to investigate the alleged 2012 rape of a 14-year-old girl in the small town of Maryville.

Jean Peters Baker, the prosecutor in Jackson County, in the Kansas City area, has been asked by a judge to re-examine the case, which was dropped by the county prosecutor in Maryville even though the girl had identified a 17-year-old high school football player as her attacker.

At a Monday news conference, Ms Baker said her office would "thoroughly review" the case "without fear or favour."

"I can assure you politics, connections ... will not play a role in (reviewing) this case," said Ms Baker, a Democrat, who was appointed after insinuations that Nodaway County Prosecutor Robert Rice had dropped the case for political reasons. One suspect's grandfather was a prominent local politician — a Republican, like Mr Rice.

The case triggered an uproar in Maryville and focused international attention on the town of 12,000. The hacking collective Anonymous has besieged Nodaway County prosecutor Rice and other local officials, tweeting Mr Rice's office phone number to a million or more followers and also targeting the suspect and his family.

Daisy Coleman, now 16, and her mother, Melinda Coleman, have said Daisy was plied with alcohol at the football player's home, sexually assaulted and left on her front porch in freezing weather wearing only a T-shirt and sweatpants. Daisy has said another boy, then 17, videotaped the assault on a cellphone and that her 13-year-old friend was raped the same night by a 15-year-old boy.

The former football star, now in college, was charged with sexually assaulting Daisy, and the other 17-year-old was charged with sexual exploitation. But Mr Rice dropped the charges, saying witnesses had refused to cooperate and that Daisy had twice cited her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination while refusing to answer certain questions.

Melinda Coleman told the Los Angeles Times last week that she did not refuse to cooperate and that Daisy had never cited her Fifth Amendment rights — and had refused to sign a document saying she had planned to invoke those rights.

Daisy's accused attacker, Matthew Barnett, then a defensive end on the high school football team, is from a politically prominent local family. Mr Barnett and Jordan Zech, then 17, were charged as adults. Both pleaded not guilty, saying Daisy had consented to sex.

The 15-year-old boy was sent to the juvenile justice system before the charges were dropped.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/maryvil...cutor-named-20131022-2vyc3.html#ixzz2iQFWLUfA

With the charges dropped, the boys' backers, families and friends felt vindicated but aggrieved.

And they wanted an apology.

Some launched a campaign of incessant harassment which quickly achieved its goal: The Colemans were hounded from their home.

Shortly after they left, in April 2012, their former house burnt down.

The pyre seemed to be an exclamation mark, ending a murky chapter in the town's history.

The town's attention was immediately turned towards their Republican legal prosecutor: Had Robert Rice really dropped the charges because of the political connections of one of the alleged rapists' families?

“Within four hours, we had obtained a search warrant for the house and executed that,” White told The Star. “We had all of the suspects in custody and had audio/video confessions

told the police that “although the girl said ‘no’ multiple times, he undressed her, put a condom on and had sex with her.”

If they had video confessions, why were the charges dropped ?
Dosent make any sense.
 
Indeed, I think this is the case where having elected judges/attorneys-general shoots you right in the foot. I imagine it's tremendously difficult to launch a serious prosecution of the local town prodigy.
 
There was no need for the OP to mention the political party the accused's grandfather belongs to. That's just partisan hackery. That said, about damn time.
 
Honestly, the people defending this guy should take a hard, long, good look at themselves.
Defending a guy who:

Got a minor (14 year old) drunk, so drunk that it could have easily killed her.
Raped said girl on film.
Dumping the girl in snow, which could have easily lead to her freezing to death, whilst she was barely conscious.

What a scumbag.
 
They likely will now that it's known that one of the alleged perp's pops is a Republican. The concept of "legitimate rape" and whether or not rape is even actually possible is not something absent from Republican politics.

Let the politically-sanctioned slut-shaming begin.

What in the hell? Here? Or somewhere else? Aside from the idiots, whom I assume still exist, that stipulate that if a girl gets drunk around a boy she's automatically consented to the D, or possibly some people who will yammer about wanting a fair trial, if such a thing can actually be obtained, is actually going to do this?
 
What in the hell? Here? Or somewhere else? Aside from the idiots, whom I assume still exist, that stipulate that if a girl gets drunk around a boy she's automatically consented to the D, or possibly some people who will yammer about wanting a fair trial, if such a thing can actually be obtained, is actually going to do this?

No, I didn't mean anyone here. Have you not seen these statements by politicians and ideologues? I can provide quotes and videos, if you like.
 
No, I didn't mean anyone here. Have you not seen these statements by politicians and ideologues? I can provide quotes and videos, if you like.

Aside from the morons which exist, albeit in small numbers, that seem to stipulate that any raped female is raped due to lack of correct behavior as a definitional thing - the only time I've ever read "legitimate rape," which is a stupid term itself, is in the context of abortion law. Which, if we're either wisely or foolishly complicated enough to view the world in shades of grey at least makes some semblance(if poor) sense.

Put the shoes on for a jog. We agree that abortion is shades of grey. That the worth of humans, particularly developing humans, scales with time and divining a clean line at which one person's rights may overtake or at least compete with another's is an imprecise game. We also agree that the conditions from which a pregnancy arise can influence the ethical balance of competing rights. Which seems to be why many people who oppose abortion in general are willing to carve out exceptions for rape.

Now, if we're willing to do that as a society, and I'd say we mostly are, why on earth do people like to pretend that rape is all easy peasy to parse out? It's not. It might often be, such as probably it is in this case, assuming as always, we can actually construct a narrative that's relatively close to the truth of the events in question. It's definitely an easy question when you have a gross imbalance of power be it from violence, some form of guardianship, age disparity, some form of unequal intoxication, things like that. But, if all forms of rape are indeed equally reprehensible and beyond question, then why do we categorize it? Why are there differing criminal punishments? Why do we have laws that stipulate that two people can actually rape each other simultaneously either in a state of sobriety or intoxication? Is that lack of clarity the general context for dippy statements like "legitimate rape?" Given that our commonly used language is super crappy at drawing finer lines on a topic in which it's incredibly incendiary to attempt to look at in any nuance to begin with?
 
It does seem to typically be the "law and order" types who try to more frequently find wacky excuses why their own form of draconian justice should be applied to everybody but themselves, their offspring, and their friends.

This is particularly true with rape. Just look at how much controversy there is in the military in this regard.
 
I think it probably tends to be anyone with power and that it extends across a lot of horrible issues. How long was Ted a senator after that girl drowned?
 
The answer to your question is small town politics.

There was no need for the OP to mention the political party the accused's grandfather belongs to. That's just partisan hackery. That said, about damn time.

Agree with VRWCAgent, its small town politics. I grew up in a small town (approx. 600 pop) and certain families rule and do things that aren't allowed. My guess is enough local pressure was put on these individuals to protect them and get the charges dropped. The best thing that happened is that it got out into the national press.

Second, one thing that has me confused is that one kid video taped someone having sex with a minor. I would have thought that alone would be considered child pornography.

I hope now that its been moved outside of the town that the truth comes out. As one fear I have is that once the national attention is lost that this gets ignored once again.
 
I think it probably tends to be anyone with power and that it extends across a lot of horrible issues. How long was Ted a senator after that girl drowned?
There is quite a difference between an accident and apparent intentional rape of two minors.
 
I think Farm Boy was getting at Teddy's actions after the crash. Not to mention the fact that Teddy probably had enough alcohol in his system to fuel an Apollo mission.
 
Well, you do generally have to be a good ol' boy to get away with that sort of "whoopsie." These cases are probably way more similar than I would have thought.
 
Well, you do generally have to be a good ol' boy to get away with that sort of "whoopsie." These cases are probably way more similar than I would have thought.
Sure. As long as you ignore the facts that driving while intoxicated was treated completely differently back then, and that rape isn't any way comparable to having a willing woman in your car with you.

Making a big deal out of Chappaquiddick is a classic example of partisan absurdity.

Kennedy pleaded guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury and received a two-month suspended jail sentence. The incident became a national scandal, and may have influenced Kennedy's decision not to campaign for President of the United States in 1972 and 1976.

The people of Massachusetts decided it wasn't a big enough of a deal to literally ruin the life of a man who had devoted much of his life to public service. Good for them.
 
Not to mention the fact that Teddy probably had enough alcohol in his system to fuel an Apollo mission.

There's no fuel alcohol anywhere in a Saturn V or IB stack. :nono:
 
Back
Top Bottom