Hackers leak video of Steubenville, Ohio Rape case.

Originally posted by Luminaught




BTW, As a father I agree with your statement about the girls relatives going full goose vigilante on the perps.

It's a shame but when the LAW fails to protect the people that pay their salaries, gets bogged down in BS technicalities, lets the corrupt and inept make decisions that do nothing for justice of those harmed, then
perhaps it's time for another approach.

Get a rope...

reply to post by Gando702


Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I guess, everyone now is riding on the social media frenzy where this case is concerned and what good has it brought so far? I guess, folks in equibbly are right to ask for making cyber-bullying a serious crime.

reply to post by Afterthought


Actually yoou would be wrong.. It is not my responsibility to investigate a crime that did not occur within my jurisdiction. I would refer you to the appropriate agency.

Secondly - Per a US Supreme Court ruling, law enforcement is not obligated to act.

Third, Law Enforcement is present to protect society as a whole, not the individual.

If you actually spent some time learning the law and procedure, which you apparently dont need, you would know this. Instead, you willingly choose ignorance.

Since I actually do this for a living and since you dont, you have anbsolutely no idea what you are talking about. A law in the state of Ohio is not the same law in the State of California is not the same law in the state of New York is not the same law in Guam.

Its apparent you guys are purposely ignoring any information that does not support your lynching... The evidence says you are wrong, the evidence says no immunity was granted.

I find it amazing that you will so wiilingly accept theories if it supports your goal while ignoring the very same when it does not -

IE the PA's son not being involved - which you guys are claiming he was, while dismissing the text message from the girl to the guy..

Originally posted by truthseeker1781
reply to post by Gando702

 

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I guess, everyone now is riding on the social media frenzy where this case is concerned and what good has it brought so far? I guess, folks in equibbly are right to ask for making cyber-bullying a serious crime.

\\


That apparently only applies to situations where some of the people in this thread dont have an interest in the case.

They have already made arguments this should be tried in the court of public opinion and not a court of law. Do we expect anything other than mob mentality and a lynching.

People seem to have co-opted this phrase and made it into their own -

Inter arma enim silent leges has been changed to Inter Insciens enim silent leges...

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

That is correct - the attorney generals office DID NOT grant immunity to any witness during their investigation. I never said they did!

The Jefferson County Prosecutor Jane Hanlin granted immunity to three witness during the two week time period BEFORE she declared herself in conflict of interest and recused herself.

radionewz.net...

Walter Madison, defense attorney for one of the 16-year-old defendants, asserted Wednesday that the state agreed not to charge the witnesses in exchange for their cooperation with the prosecution of the defendants. “There was immunity given,” Madison declared. “They were granted immunity in exchange for their cooperation.” The attorney also alluded to a deal during his cross examination of one of the witnesses in October, saying that the boy had “cut a deal.” Adam Nemann represents the other defendant, who in addition to rape was charged with illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material for allegedly taking a picture of the naked girl. Nemann could not be reached for comment Wednesday, but he has echoed Madison’s claim about an agreement between the witnesses and the prosecution.

Tired of Control Freaks

You must be using a different dictionary than I am..

Asserted means -

as·sert·ed (-sûrtd)
adj.
Confidently stated to be so but without proof; alleged: the asserted value of a painting.

without proof... feel free to post the proof needed to assist the defense lawyer with his case.. He would be most grateful.

Again another example where the blind hatred takes priority over truth and facts.


Out of curioisty are you ever going to stop hunting your whale Ahab?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Xcathdra

The proof you require is in the facts. The witnesses to who Jane Hanlin granted immunity testified in the show cause hearing with information that implicated themselves. No lawyer in the world is going to allow their client to self-incriminate on the stand without immunity.

Tired of Control freaks

reply to post by Xcathdra


Out of curiousity

Are you ever going to start looking at the facts?


"In a letter to the three players just days before they testified against their friends and teammates, DeWine wrote that each player "may not have conducted himself in a responsible or appropriate manner, his behavior did not rise to the level of any criminal conduct.... Therefore, we will not prosecute your client for his actions on August 11-12, 2012."

I

Tired of Control Freaks

They are the ones who failed to preserve the evidence (rape kit/toxicology) and who deleted electronic evidence.

And who should be prosecuted for it.

Death penalty to these sickos if found guilty or better yet, life in prison so they can get their butts kicked and raped year after year...

Rapists are almost as worse as murderers.

Hey i live in martins ferry also whatsssss uuuppppreply to post by daynj1736

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Xcathdra

The proof you require is in the facts. The witnesses to who Jane Hanlin granted immunity testified in the show cause hearing with information that implicated themselves. No lawyer in the world is going to allow their client to self-incriminate on the stand without immunity.

Tired of Control freaks

Right... Why dont you bother to post the portion of the article that tell us who was granted immunity and why.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Out of curiousity

Are you ever going to start looking at the facts?


"In a letter to the three players just days before they testified against their friends and teammates, DeWine wrote that each player "may not have conducted himself in a responsible or appropriate manner, his behavior did not rise to the level of any criminal conduct.... Therefore, we will not prosecute your client for his actions on August 11-12, 2012."

I

Tired of Control Freaks

Again feel free to post the information.. and how about you actually link to your source.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Here is the link:

www.theatlanticwire.com...

In a letter to the three players just days before they testified against their friends and teammates, DeWine wrote that each player "may not have conducted himself in a responsible or appropriate manner, his behavior did not rise to the level of any criminal conduct.... Therefore, we will not prosecute your client for his actions on August 11-12, 2012."

Further, Jane Hanlin did not declare herself to be in conflict of interest until AFTER the investigation was compete and charges had been filed.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

In a letter to the three players just days before they testified against their friends and teammates, DeWine wrote that each player "may not have conducted himself in a responsible or appropriate manner, his behavior did not rise to the level of any criminal conduct.... Therefore, we will not prosecute your client for his actions on August 11-12, 2012."

Funny that!

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Directly from your source, first paragraph:

Ohio's attorney general has revealed that student witnesses for the prosecution during a preliminary hearing in the Steubenville rape case had not been granted immunity, rebuking statements from defense lawyers for the two Steubenville High football players accused of assaulting a 16-year-old girl — and throwing open the possibility that testimony could be used against at least three more members of the Big Red team.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Also directly from my post

"In a letter to the three players just days before they testified against their friends and teammates, DeWine wrote that each player "may not have conducted himself in a responsible or appropriate manner, his behavior did not rise to the level of any criminal conduct.... Therefore, we will not prosecute your client for his actions on August 11-12, 2012."

With a letter like that - from the prosecuting attorney - that is just as good if not better than immunity. Immunity has very specific rules, this is as good as a blessing from a priest!

You and I both know that if there is a case for criminal charges against these witnesses - the first thing on the table will be that letter!!! And it is huge grounds for appeal if found guilty!

Xcathdra

You claim that you are a LEO (but deny that I am also a LEO). When your opinion was asked about conflict of interest on the part of Jane Hanlin, you merely hemmed and hawed about how the guidelines may be different in different areas. I am sorry but you opinion is worthless. Being involved in an investigation in which you know the parties and your own son may be called as a witness is a pretty clear example on any conflict of interest guidelines that I have ever seen.

I didn't hem and haw - I looked up the actual guidelines for prosecutors in OHIO. Did you somehow forget where this incident occurred and such guidelines are publically available?

As a matter of fact - you pretty much hemmed and hawed through every question you were asked.

Really - are you just a windbag trying to show off your superiority or are you honestly up for debate and discussion.

It appears to me that the case of the "vanishing" immunity is quite unusual. It would be sheer legal incompetence for the lawyer of these juvenile witnesses to allow them to testify without first having immunity. The letter sent by the Ohio State Attorney's office is also very very unusual.

What appears to have happened here to me, is that when the state attorney realized that the county attorney has participated in the investigation, issued immunity to witnesses, and chose what charges would be laid and against who, before declaring herself in conflict of interest, the state attorney went ballistic and tried to withdraw immunity. Of course, its too late for any of that and the letter was sent to reassure the juveniles and their lawyers and their parents that the witnesses would not be prosecuted after all.

Now - I am going to invite to get off your high horse and have a reasonable debate. But if you are going to continue trying to be my "superior", I am just going to ignore you from now on.

In my opinion, there is clear evidence of conflict of interest. Sufficient I think for the county prosecutor to be censured and a complaint made to the Law Society. The only part that Jane Hanlin as a prosecutor didn't do before recusing herself was to stand in front of the judge and show the evidence.

Tired of Control Freaks

No LEO has any business on a high horse, as we have corrupt politicians designing immoral laws which are then blindly enforced. "Hey, just followin' orders" is the ultimate cop-out and denial of personal responsibility.

Duke: The lights are growing dim Otto. I know a life of crime has led me to this sorry fate, and yet, I blame society. Society made me what I am. Otto: That’s bulls(pit). You’re a white suburban punk just like me. Duke: Yeah, but it still hurts

Love me some Repo Man.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Hey, been taking a break from ATS, but just stopped in to see if any new details had emerged in this case. I saw that Xcath is still here preaching about jurisdictions and what cops are legally allowed to ignore.
What Xcath stated above was very transparent and I quote:

Actually yoou would be wrong.. It is not my responsibility to investigate a crime that did not occur within my jurisdiction. I would refer you to the appropriate agency.

Secondly - Per a US Supreme Court ruling, law enforcement is not obligated to act.

Third, Law Enforcement is present to protect society as a whole, not the individual.

This must be from "The Lazy Cop's Guidelines".
First, he is still going on about jurisdiction when my fictionalized scenario would've been in his working vicinity, but he's falling back on jurisdiction to make excuses for his statement of inaction by telling me I'd have to go talk to someone else.
Second, where does it state anywhere that LEOs have a choice to act or not? This sounds like only a lazy and/or corrupt officer's answer.
Third, by Xcath stating that police are to protect society as a whole and not the individual indicates that he's under the belief that rapists only rape once, then stop.

I'm ignoring Xcath from here on out and I hope you and others do as well. He's a joke in a uniform and I'd be ashamed if he were working in my area. I wouldn't feel safe at all.

Thanks to the member who posted that one of the guys had video/photos of two other possible rape victims. A much darker picture is starting to emerge.

Not worth my time..

reply to post by Afterthought


Afterthought

Actually you are mistaken. Leo's are not blind, deaf and dumb robots. They have discretion to lay charges or not. Leo's are feet on the ground, front-line, deal with the public-in-all-its-glory, warriors. They are the ones who see not only violations but also the context in which the violations occurred. They are human beings and most try very hard to use their experience and best judgement, every single minute of every single day.

If any Leo were to apply the law, exactly as its written, the justice system would be awash in neighbourhood squabbles and family feuds. Leo's are charged with the responsibility of using their judgement to prioritize issues and try to use public funds and public resources to keep the peace as much as possible.

Their highest priority is the safety of society as a whole first, then the safety of the individual. For example: Should they use their time to catch an arsonist, who is burning downtown businesses or should they try to regulate a case of minor domestic abuse where one party got slapped but otherwise suffered no harm????

When a Leo is presented with a complaint, he must first preserve the evidence - take statements from witnesses, collect physical evidence (take pictures, seize items, in the case of rape -try to get a rape kit and toxicology test) etc. Then he must put the evidence together and examine the picture it represents. He must be able to prove WHO did the crime, When did the crime occur, what crime occurred, Where did the crime, Why did the crime occur, and if possible (but not strictly necessary), How did the crime occur. If there are any holes, what evidence does he need to fill the holes? Can he somehow get the evidence? How will society benefit from this prosecution, is it worth the expenditure of resources.

He must then determine if the picture presented by the evidence presents a case where there is reasonable prospect of successful prosecution, with legal assistance, if required.

The work of a LEO is often influenced by priorities set by others (politicians and LEO managers and supervisors). And he has to do it all within the timelines set for him by others. A LEO will be criticized regardless of the decisions he makes. There is an armchair quarterback with 20/20 hindsight behind him every step of the way.

The work of a LEO is NOT black and white. Hell, the law isn't black and white! Its appears to be when written by politicians but with every case before the courts, it is interpreted. What does "may" mean is a prime example of words that must be interpreted.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I do understand that there are LEOs who do a fine and decent job. I've had to call upon them for assistance more times than I'd have liked, but they were usually professional and listened to me. Xcath seems like the type of cop who memorized the parts of the LE manual that allows him to do the least amount to work without suffering punishment.

Anyways, deal with him if you so choose. I'm tired of hearing him go on and on about jurisdictions and that there was no evidence in the video for the officers to make an arrest. This case is going to set a precedent for other rape cases and I have a feeling that women (and men) who are raped are going to be more likely NOT to report after everything is said and done in Steubenville.

Lastly, if I ever witness a rape or other felony and attempt to report it to the first cop I see and he sends me to someone else without taking a report, I will take his name and badge number and report him to his supervisor for dereliction of duty.