16 y/o rape victim sues Orange Co. GOP fat cat and his thugs (L.A. Times)

[kurth]

Los Angeles Times / March 20, 2006
Civil Trial in Sex Assault Likely to Be Ugly
The suit over the O.C. attack targets the three guilty men, the father of one, two investigators and a lawyer who vows victim will 'rue the day.'
By Christopher Goffard, Times Staff Writer

Now that a judge has imposed a prison term on the attackers, the sordid, painful four-year-long case involving Gregory Haidl and two co-defendants — and the woman who says they destroyed her — shifts to the civil courtroom, which may prove the ugliest show yet. The victim, now 20 and known publicly as Jane Doe, has sued the three young men convicted of sexually assaulting her while a video camera rolled and she lay unconscious on a pool table one July night in 2002.

And she is suing Haidl's father, a rich former Orange County assistant sheriff, alleging that he should have known of the drug- and alcohol-fueled parties raging in his Corona del Mar home, where the attack occurred. But, as part of her $26-million lawsuit, Jane Doe is also targeting others who, she says, subjected her to years of "harassment, intimidation and torture" after the attack itself. In a rare legal move, her suit names Haidl defense attorney Joseph G. Cavallo and two defense investigators, John Warren and Shawn Smigel. She says the defense staked out her Rancho Cucamonga house, went through her trash, stalked her, improperly obtained her medical records, broadcast her identity and once cornered her in a parking lot while snapping pictures...

Jane Doe was 16 at the time of the attack, and the three defendants — Haidl, Kyle Nachreiner and Keith Spann — all 17. The videotape, with Haidl running the camera, depicts the boys violating her limp body with a host of objects, including a pool cue, a lighted cigarette and a Snapple bottle. The first trial ended in a deadlock, with jurors leaning toward acquittal. A second jury convicted them of sexual assault, but not rape, and on March 10 a Superior Court Judge sentenced them all to six-year prison terms...

She said she found out about the attack, which she did not remember, after Newport Beach police informed her father. After Haidl and his co-defendants were arrested, fliers materialized in Jane Doe's neighborhood identifying her as the accuser. She said she fled to another high school, seeking anonymity but said defense investigators tracked her there, stood in the parking lot and screamed out her name...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-janedoe20mar20,0,6551272.story

[Beaverhausen]

1. Good for her

This case is so disturbing. I'm glad she is taking this stand.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Misogynistic pieces of crap!!! Hope she bankrupts them all!!

[standup]

5. "A pool cue, a lighted cigarette and a Snapple bottle" is NOT rape in CA?

This is disgusting. And only six years??

[wordpix2]

12. I'm with you---those pieces of crap boys should be jailed

immediately---a 16 y.o. is raped with all those objects and it's not rape? WTF?

[ronnykmarshall]

I hear ya.

Like you, I've been following this case since it happened. Those little thugs screwed this woman up for life and I hope she cleans them out.

[Initech]

3. What assholes!!! They deserve whatever punishment they get!

[zbdent]

8. And technically, they're child rapists

They should receive some interesting treatment in prison for that . . .

[AngryAmish]

14. some rape good, other rape bad???

[Iowa]

60. I had the same thought....

and these thoughts:

--A great many innocent people are convicted and imprisoned.
--Our civil rights are being eroded at a rapid rate.
--It is conceivable that political opponents could be branded as "terrorists" and imprisoned.
--Our judicial benches are being packed with conscienceless right wing ideologues.
--Any decent society protects its prisoners (even the guilty) from cruel and unusual punishment.
--Our judicial system is racist. Minority defendants are far more likely to be convicted and imprisoned.
--US justice must be bought; poor defendants are far more likely to be convicted and imprisoned.
--Our federal and state governments have been building prisons at breakneck speed.
--There's a push on to privatize prisons - and make them profit centers.
--Abu Ghraib...

Despite all of this, we continue to see comments regarding prison rape - here on DU, on cop shows, in the coffee shops... And the gist is always, "That'll teach em!!".

How easy it is to whip up a lynch mob. I'm not buying.

[Love Bug]

102. Thank you! I don't think jokes about prison rape are funny

and are more than a little homophobic.

[NVMojo]

146. thanks for saying it like it is. many innocent people are convicted

of crimes they did not do and end up being beaten, raped or killed in prison. It's not a joking matter.

[zbdent]

77. Uh, no . . .

don't think so . . .

But remember, this is the time that a lot of freepturds believe in "an eye for an eye" punishment . . .

[Initech]

68. Ah, I get it...

Federal "pound me in the ass" prison?

[mainegreen]

84. Good for her, considering the huge number of assaults that go unreported

or unpunished in this country.

[bluerum]

4. I hope she puts them all out of business. nt

[acmavm]

6. Lawyers wonder why they are held in more contempt than used car

salesmen. How can they not understand?

I am not saying all used car salesmen (or all lawyers) are sleezebags. But I've known some of both. And brother, sleezy lawyers and used car salesmen do exist.

[ET Awful]

11. Has nothing to do with them being lawyers or used car salesmen.

After all, the person bringing the suit on her behalf is a lawyer.

Profession has nothing to do with being a sleazebag. I know slezebag doctors, dentists, corporate controllers, etc. I also know sleazebag pastry chefs. It has nothing whatsoever to do with their profession.

[acmavm]

22. Yes, it has a lot to do with the lack of decency and ethics of that

attorney. People have forgotten that attorneys are representatives of the Court. They are supposed to defend their clients in an ethical and honorable fashion. They are not supposed to lie, they are not supposed to persecute, they are not supposed to do anything that may be perceived as dishonest, underhanded, unethical, or illegal.

Now pay attention closely. I know I said that not ALL attorneys or ALL used car salesment were sleezeballs. But that I've known quite a few of each, and that sitting right here right now I can tick off the names of a number of both that should, if all was right with the world, be doing some jail time or community service for some of the crap that they've pulled.

The courts in this country are a mess. And who did that? What about the O.J. attorneys? They turned a case that should have been obvious into a mess about the racism of a L.A. police officer. Or the kidnapping and murder of that little girl in L.A. The killer's attorney's were trying to make a deal for leniency if the killer told where the body was at the same time they were pleading this guy not guilty and saying he had nothing to do with the kidnapping/murder.

Oh yeah, how about the tobacco company lawsuits? When all was said and done, who walked off with almost all the money? Not the people suffering from lung cancer or the health providers or those paying for the treatment of those who couldn't afford to pay. Nope, it was the attorneys and they walked off with hundreds of millions.

Your are right, there are a lot a sleazeball in every profession. It's just that in this case, this attorney is the stereotypical ambulance chasing crooked bastard.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

28. disbar those bastards. Oh wait. This is florida. Never mind.

[_testify_]

33. actually, this case is in California

Nice try, though.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

48. double never mind. But, hey, It's California.

[ET Awful]

29. The point is that he would be a sleazeball no matter what his profession

to preface your entire statement with "Lawyers wonder why" is like pointing to George Bush and saying "politicians wonder why" . . . it's a flawed argument that despite your later disclaimers, attacks the entire profession for the slimey acts of people who would be slimey no matter what their profession.

When you want to badmouth attorneys, take a look at the ACLU attorneys, those who work for the SPLC and other such groups.

[acmavm]

31. I know about ACLU attorney's and how great they are. That's where I

did my internship for my Paralegal degree.

[ET Awful]

36. Then why would you open your statements by saying

"Lawyers wonder why they are held in more contempt. . . . "

Surely someone with such certifications would know better than to make such a blanket opening statement.

[acmavm]

38. Because attorneys like the ACLU are not in the majority anymore. They

are almost a rarity. I've seen too damn many willing to weasel, lie, and cover for a client that they know is lying their asses off. That's why.

[ET Awful]

39. Ahhh, so what you're doing is projecting your own prejudices against

the entire profession.

Hell, using that argument, I could say the same thing about state police.

[acmavm]

47. I am not projecting my own prejudices, I am just commenting on what

I have read (survey's regarding what the public thinks about the legal profession.) And what I was saying is that with cretinous bastards like the attorney under discussion originally, it is NO WONDER that the public has the perception about them that they do. The legal profession needs to do a much better job of enforcing ethical behavior in its ranks.

I am also basing my statements on what I have seen personally. And I do mean personally. They were not my lawsuits, I had no monetary or personal interest, but I was intimately familiar with the details of the cases in question and I know, know for a fact, that the attorney's involved did not represent the best interests of all parties involved. Their representation was based on what was in the best interests of the own bank accounts.

Also, and for the last time, I state again I do not say all attorney's are as ethically bankrupt as the guy in question in the original story. But I will stand by the statement that when attorney's don't condemn behavior like that, when they think it is acceptable to do 'whatever it takes' to win their case, they have no right to wonder why the public feels about them as they do. While a client deserves the best defense or representation possible, it in no way means that the courtroom is an 'anything goes' arena.

Now, just before signing off for the last time I will state once more that I understand that all attorneys aren't as rotten as the one in the article, I do understand the public's perception of them as being as bad because they do not condemn this kind of behavior.

[ET Awful]

51. If you truly feel that way, why are you attacking the legal profession

instead of say, engaging in debate with the person below who says the attorney shouldn't be sued because he was doing his job?

[acmavm]

54. Because I figured I'd leave it up to you to be the last word in how every-

body is wrong but yourself. You can handle it. You apparently know what everyone really means regardless of what they post.

[ET Awful]

58. I'm not the one that chose words designed to denigrate an entire

profession than said "that's not what I really meant."

Either say what you mean or don't say it. Don't say one thing then say you meant another.

[acmavm]

59. This is from my first post on this thread. I did say exactly what I meant.

<snip>I am not saying all used car salesmen (or all lawyers) are sleezebags. But I've known some of both. And brother, sleezy lawyers and used car salesmen do exist.
<snip>

You're the one who seems hell bent on saying I said the WHOLE profession is sleezy. I didn't say that. But I've read through this whole thread and you seem to be putting you own spin on a number of people's posts. What is it with you?

[ET Awful]

61. No, what I'm saying is that you should NOT open your statements

by denigrating the entire profession, then follow up by saying "that's not what I meant".

Perhaps you should read what I said.

Now, if your goal was not to attack the profession, would it not have been better to state that as your title instead of "and attorneys wonder why"?

Unless of course, your goal was to attack the profession.

[acmavm]

63. Whatever, have it your way boss. I have better things to do than to keep

reading you tell me what I meant. Enjoy. So far you haven't scored many points on any of your posts. Keep up the good work.

edit: spelling

[ET Awful]

65. Aww yes, the final tactic for someone who knows they are in the wrong

accuse and run.

[Ufomammut]

7. Wasn't it initially reported that she *wanted* group sex with them?

I'm not suggesting this is a "regret = rape" scenario due to the ugly nature of all that happened to her while unconscious, but I do vaguely recall this case.

[Beaverhausen]

9. Right. I'm sure she wanted to be raped with a lit cigarette

What woman doesn't love that? :eyes:

Don't forget, one of the rapists was the son of a local councilman, who used every tactic to make the victim look like she "wanted it."

Why are you buying it?

[ET Awful]

10. Mmmmhmmm, a 16 year old wanted to be gang raped and violated

with objects ranging from a lit cigarette to a Snapple bottle.

Sorry, don't buy it for a second.

[Ufomammut]

13. That's quite an extrapolation...

How did you infer that from my post?

From what I remember, she was friends with these stooges, and wanted to make a home-made porn film with them. I seriously doubt that they told her beforehand that they'd drug and violate her.

[ET Awful]

15. Ahhh, so then it's your position that a 16-year-old girl has the ability

to responsibly decide to be featured in a porn film? Sorry, that's not a valid legal argument either.

Do you also argue that rape victims deserved it because they wore revealing clothes?

[Ufomammut]

18. No, I'm in favor of increasing the porn-consent age to 21

It's unfortunate, and it likewise speaks to the influence of porn. What business is it of mine to propose a "valid legal argument" on anyone's behalf? I'm just saying that that's what happened and sadly paid a high price for involving herself.

You ask, "Do you also argue that rape victims deserved it because they wore revealing clothes?" Of course not. Do you believe there's an inherent moral flaw in sixteen yr old girls who are attracted to jerks and "bad boys?"

[ET Awful]

19. I'm not the one blaming the victim here. Let's stick to your reasoning

behind saying it's her fault she was gang-raped and that she wanted it.

Then, while you're doing that, imagine that the girl is your daughter or your sister, then tell us your feelings.

[Ufomammut]

24. Please copy/paste my *exact* words that claim or imply...

My "reasoning" that it's her "fault," and that "she wanted it."

What she may or may not have wanted - which, we'll never truly know - is clearly not how events turned out. Are you so naive as to believe that there aren't plenty of teenagers who routinely engage in activities that would blow their parents minds? This particular incident took a bad turn for the worse.

[ET Awful]

27. Gee, what exactly did you mean when you said

"I'm just saying that that's what happened and sadly paid a high price for involving herself" and "From what I remember, she was friends with these stooges, and wanted to make a home-made porn film with them."

Sounds like you're blaming her for being raped to me.

[Ufomammut]

32. In keeping with how you're twisting things to suit you...

I could then say: so what you're saying is that she didn't pay a high price for involving herself?

I mean, I realize that people bring their own load of personal baggage to any given issue, and this clearly has upset you, and has touched a nerve that I included an aspect of the case that you don't like for personal reasons. Sorry about that. However, I'm not saying what it is you apparently are desperately wishing I am, so I'll clarify: even if she willingly showed up at their house for the explicit purpose of having sex with them, it in no way gave them the right to drug and violate her.

[ET Awful]

34. The point is, had you read anything to do with the case, you'd know

that she denies that she was there for that purpose. The only ones that say she was are the ones who raped her and their families and attorneys.

The point is that you chose to believe the story of her rapists.

The point is that you DID blame the victim.

She involved herself in the same way that any victim of crime does, she was there and she was vulnerable. Only you are trying to carry it beyond that.

You can choose to believe her attackers if you like, I'll take her side.

[Ufomammut]

40. Guess whatever her reason was for being there...

Was quite ill-fated.

[ET Awful]

44. Well, using that logic, any crime victim in any location was

"quite ill-fated" right?

[pitohui]

126. ha if you can call it logic!

jeez why prosecute any crime at all, if the victim was beloved by god, she would have been led to another house or another street and no crime would have occurred

you would have thought by 1982 any "progressive" would be aware that oh, she shouldn't have been in that neighborhood or in that room or at that house was classic blame the victim

[ET Awful]

132. Sounds like the Bill Napolli criteria for abortion eh?

"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.. . . "

I mean hell, if those descriptions don't apply, it MUST be the girls fault right?

[pitohui]

43. age of porn consent is already 18, she was 16

not getting your argument

there was no way that she could legally consent to being in a porn film or any way they could legally film themselves having sex with her in a porn film

their excuse for the crime was that they had committed a different crime, whoa, that's not terribly sympathetic if you ask me

[pitohui]

42. yeah "she wanted it" is the usual smear against rape victims

how the hell could she have wanted it when she was freakn unconscious?

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

80. I believe the point Ufomammut is making is

that she originally went to the place for sex. But, when she was there, she was drugged and violently take advantage of. It seems to me that most of us are on the same side, as in, we all think these guys should get 25-life whether she originally wanted sex or not.

[Bunny]

81. How do we know she originally went to the place for sex?

I didn't see that in the article. Are you taking the word of the convicted rapists on this?

[Ufomammut]

As stated yesterday

I only vaguely recall this case from when it happened, so I re-read the article, and from it, her intention and purpose for going with these guys is dubious at best. However, given that the first trial was acquitted, and the delicate nature of the situation pertaining to her intentions versus what actually happened - especially since she claims she didn't know she had been victimized until someone told her about it(???) ...

Here's my take on what happened:
Like many teenagers, she wanted to be liked by the popular kids, agreed to group sex with these guys who were willing to take advantage, and once things were underway, they drugged her and did a lot of nasty shit to her that she - even though she agreed to have sex with the boys - obviously wouldn't have "gone along" with had she been conscious. So, it's easy to see why this is such an ugly case, because even though the crime is clear-cut, the context in which it occurred is muddled.

[ET Awful]

89. First trial was "acquitted"? No, it was a hung jury.

There is a very large difference between the two. Acquittal means they find someone not guilty of the charges, a hung jury means that the jury is unable to reach a unanimous decision as is required by law. That means that it only takes one person to cause a hung jury. If, for instance, there is one person who thinks that "she wanted to make a porn video" and that she "wanted it" they can cause a hung jury.

If there was an acquittal in the first trial, there wouldn't have been a second trial.

[Ufomammut]

103. To quote the article:

"The first trial ended in a deadlock, with jurors leaning toward acquittal."

So, you're correct, and I didn't read it closely enough.

[Ufomammut]

86. As stated yesterday

I only vaguely recall this case from when it happened, so I re-read the article, and from it, her intention and purpose for going with these guys is dubious at best. However, given that the first trial was acquitted, and the delicate nature of the situation pertaining to her intentions versus what actually happened - especially since she claims she didn't know she had been victimized until someone told her about it(???) ...

Here's my take on what happened:
Like many teenagers, she wanted to be liked by the popular kids, agreed to group sex with these guys who were willing to take advantage, and once things were underway, they drugged her and did a lot of nasty shit to her that she - even though she agreed to have sex with the boys - obviously wouldn't have "gone along" with had she been conscious. So, it's easy to see why this is such an ugly case, because even though the crime is clear-cut, the context in which it occurred is muddled.

[pitohui]

113. the context is irrelevant

you don't get to put on video tape sex with a 16 yr old and not go to jail for manufacturing child porn, that is the law in every usa state

her consent, which i personally don't believe ever existed, is not even relevant

she's underage, she can't consent to being in a porn flick

sounds like to me that she was out-numbered by a bunch of boys and got jumped, drugged, raped, and tortured anyway if that makes her more sympathetic but if she was lured by one boy (you know damn well if she wanted sex there was one cute boy making promises, the wingman, and the others showed up later) so what the fuck, they are still torturers who drugged, raped, and made an illegal porno flick w. an underage girl

put 'em under the jail and they never get out in my view

context is of v. limited interest, no girl should have to pay such a price for having normal female hormones and sexual desires in any case so she wanted it is a bogus argument from a to z, in this case, no one is saying she wanted it but the rapists, and the taped evidence shows proof that she was unconscious and not capable of consent anyway

[Ufomammut]

119. Emotional versus critical judgment

The perps were minors as well. Minors can't "consent" to drink alcohol, but still do all the time. And if she had been "jumped" and attacked, as you claim, isn't it likely that she would have some recollection of what occurred before passing out from the drugging?

I "know damn well," ...as you say? No, you, nor I, know anything about this case beyond what is reported on. The rest is speculation, of which apparently many people have a great deal of difficulty in lending credence to the idea that this victimized girl ended up being raped after going to the boys' house for the purpose of having sex with them, not being drugged and raped by them.

[pitohui]

123. why are you speculating abt this 16 yr old's sex life anyway?

it is clear you think her a dirty girl, that any girl who goes to a boy's house looking for sex is making a "mistake" and that we should not waste our pity on such dirty girls

i'm sorry to say, but many of us were actually teen-age girls once, and we do feel that teen girls should be free to have normal desires w.out being attacked so viciously

your argument is the classic blame the victim argument of what was she doing there?

you know what, it don't matter what she was doing there

teen girls should have a right to visit friends, just as teen boys do

i realize you don't accept or understand that, and you think it reasonable to consider the "context" and give a lighter sentence to the friends who betrayed her

in truth what you suggest is WORSE than a stranger dragging her into a car, because it was people she knew and thought to be friends who betrayed her

your "defense" is no defense of their hateful crime, the crime of people who prey on their friends because they are both evil and lack the courage to seek out strangers when they can prey on a friend close to hand

it is not relevant to anything

it is back to the 50s "she shouldn't have been there" if she wants it called rape

[Ufomammut]

127. You're wrong

I'm speculating on her sex life as it directly pertains to how or why this girl was with these boys to begin with.

[pitohui]

131. why?

it is shameful that you should even be doing that

it's the old "only a virgin can be raped" and that was stale back in 1969 frankly

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

87. Nope. I'm not taking their word

What I'm saying is this. If she went to that house for sex (which is assuming that she wanted to have sex, and they didn't attack her and take her there), that's the most she did wrong (and I maintain, in that scenario, it was a mistake, but it wasn't her fault). What I'm saying is that even IF she did go there to have sex, it still wasn't her fault she was raped. So, depending on whether she went there for sexd or not, this could be a hypothetical situation. But that really doesn't have much to do with my point.

This is poorly worded. . . Sorry if you can't tell what I'm trying to say, so I'm ognna make a more consise (sp?) version.

It was not her fault she was raped. Even if she went to that house for sex, that was a mistake (but not her fault), and is not relevant to my point. It was not her fault she was raped


On a brighter note, you have the cutest bunny in you sig

[Ufomammut]

82. Bingo

Great sweating Jesus man!!! lol Thank you for your capacity to discern that simple fact. It seemed as though the context in which this crime occurred was irrelevent within this thread, which, given the nature of it, I realize is perhaps "off limits" for some, if only because - as was clearly demonstrated - to suggest that she maybe did go their for the defenses stated reason means, for certain personalities, that she was "asking for it;" well, define "it:" what she went there for to begin with? ...or, the crime that ended up happening once she made the choice to go there.

[Heidi]

91. The three _rapists_ also made "ill-fated" decisions, don't you agree?

What difference does the context make? She was a minor when the rapes occurred. If she had gone there and _demanded_ that those guys drug and rape her, they _still_ would have had a legal obligation to _not_ forcibly rape an incapacited minor. Get it? In my estimation, these guys did this to themselves. And at least one of the rapists has been poorly served by the notion that daddy's money can get him out of any scrape.

[Ufomammut]

104. I'm not disagreeing with you...

How many times do people inadvertantly avoid disaster because, as an example, at the last minute, they decide to turn left on 1st St instead of right on 2nd? Follow? Someone gets on a rollercoaster, it crashes, they die: yes, it was indeed an "ill-fated" choice to climb aboard.

And "context" makes a lot of difference in all areas in life, as it speaks to intent.

[Heidi]

106. In this case, it makes _no_ difference.

There is _no_ evidence that the young woman had the intention of being raped. But there is a mountain of evidence that the rapists knew she was incapacited (the video shows that they "propped" her up for some of the sex acts), and so the rapists' intent was clear: to screw her brains out, despite her inability to consent.

[Ufomammut]

109. I've NEVER stated or implied that she...

Went with them for the explicit purpose of being "raped," of being subjected to what she was subjected to. That's what throws me - how are you reading my posts and coming up with that idea? Or are you suggesting that "group sex" automatically equals "rape?"

[Heidi]

110. I'm addressing your argument about context being meaningful

with regard to intent. How was the young woman's intent in any way inform the circumstances?

If I were suggesting that group sex automatically equated rape, I would have said, "Group sex automatically equals rape." But I don't believe that, which is why I didn't say it.

[Ufomammut]

112. I'm unsure of what you're driving at...

You stated: "There is _no_ evidence that the young woman had the intention of being raped."

Yes, fine, I agree, and if you go through and read all of my posts in this thread, you'll not me making such a claim, or even implying as such.

What I'm saying is, that, contextually, she may have gone to the boys' house for the reason they claim, which was not to be "raped," but to have group sex. Hence, when you say that "There is _no_ evidence that the young woman had the intention of being raped," I'm wondering if you equate group sex with rape since she may have intended on participating in group sex.

[Heidi]

114. Why are you still wondering

what I think about group sex? This discussion isn't about group sex. It's about civil lawsuit alleging that parental irresponsibility contributed to the plaintiff being raped.

Yes, in fact, she may have gone to the young man's house to have group sex. However, the fact that she was incapacitated and unable to give consent makes it rape. Perhaps there's nothing more for you and I to discuss, if you agree on these points.

[pitohui]

118. who cares why she went to the house?

we get it that you think a 16 yr old girl should not get sex or want sex but your sexual hang-ups are not really the point here, are they?

this is the point --
teens and women should be allowed to be sexual beings without being drugged, raped, tortured, and filmed while being tortured

jeezus

this is a flashback to the bad old days where the victim's reputation was put on trial, because only a holy angel could possibly be raped

what if your mom met a nice well-to-do guy, went back to his house, then it turns out his buddies are there, she's drugged, raped, tortured, and filmed?

same context only now it's your mom

does context still matter?

women are allowed to be sexual beings w.out the penalty being drugged, raped, tortured, and filmed

this seems pretty non-negotiable to me

[Ufomammut]

122. WTF?! My sexual hang-ups?

Someday you may have a daughter, okay. Now, let's suppose that she comes home one night after being out late. You awake and realize she's crying, upset. You confront her, concerned, "what's wrong?," you ask. And she tells you about how her and her friends went to some boys' house where people were partying and hooking up, and she was assaulted and/or raped.

Now, then let's suppose you know who the boys are. And you know that they're flaming assholes with a well deserved reputation. And you know that your daughter realized it as well. Aside from being concerned for your daughter, comforting her and seeking medical treatment, you're going to want to kill the boys with your bare hands, and the first question that's going to pop into your head is this:
"Why and the hell did she go to their house in the first place?!"

How many drunk driving fatalities involving teens are of a similar nature?

[ET Awful]

128. Nonsense. If she knows them, has known them for a long time,

and has gone to school with them for years, that is NOT the first question that comes into my mind.

Hell, when I was in high school, I had friends over constantly, male and female. None were ever gang-raped. No parent ever questions why they were at my house. We were kids, we hung out, we had fun.

Then, you yet again misrepresent the facts of the case. Daddy didn't find her crying and upset. He didn't ask her what was wrong, not until police came to him and informed him what had happened.

So now your comparing drunk driving to gang-rape? That's a big stretch.

[Ufomammut]

138. Oh come now, I'm not using conceptual examples as true...

"Representations of the case," or, misrepresentations, as you state. And since when do you have to "know" someone for a long time to formulate an informed opinion of them?

[ET Awful]

140. Ummm, it would seem pretty obvious to me that having known them for

a long period of time would lead someone to be MORE likely to trust them if no prior assault or hint thereof had occurred.

Also, in order to form an informed opinion, you must first be informed. That doesn't happen instantaneously.

[pitohui]

129. ok you plan to hate and blame your daughter when she's in trouble

gotcha

that is your first question

not how to get your daughter tested for hiv/aids, not how to get a rape kit, not how to get the morning after pill, not how to get her medical treatment to make sure she doesn't suffer lifelong damage from this crime

but your FIRST question would be to put blame on your daughter who may be infected with a disease w. lifelong consequences or pregnant w. some rapist's baby

dude, and i say dude w. every bit of confidence because you do not know what a woman is or how a woman thinks or what a woman's concerns are

rape is not just a man having his bit of fun, when he shoves stuff inside of us we don't want, our organs can be damaged for life, our bodies infected w. disease for life, we can have a baby stuffed in us that will need care for 2 decades

THAT WOULD BE MY FIRST EFFING QUESTION

jeez louise, i feel dirty just talking to you frankly, i don't think i even want to try and understand that frame of mind that puts the laying of blame before all other consideration

[NVMojo]

147. actually, I think that was reported that way. I saw a tv special on this

case and that seems like the grey area part of it or something like that.

[MadHound]

16. I hope that she takes these bastards to the cleaners

But I have to disagree with her taking the defense attorney to court. Was he agrressive in doing his job? Yes, but he hasn't been charged with any of the crimes she mentioned. Until he is, I would find her inclusion of him in the lawsuit would be a precedent that we don't want to set. It could easily rebound on the rest of society, and the legal system, in horrible ways.

But as far as the rest of the defendants go, I hope she gets every penny out of them.

[ET Awful]

20. She's suing him for what he did outside the courtroom

Major invasions of privacy, public humiliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.

No respectable defense attorney engages in the type of behavior this slimeball did.

[MadHound]

23. Note, I'm not condoning this behaviour, OK

But some of the actions she described the guy doing, staking out her house, going through her trash, etc. are pretty common practice, especially amongst the ambulance chasing section of lawyers. Is it trashy, sleezy, etc.? Sure, but it is entirely legal also. In addition, some of our greatest landmark cases were won with some of these tactics. Erin Brokavich and Karen Silkwood wouldn't have gotten their cases to court, much less won, without a little extracurricular dumpster diving.

I just think that setting this kind of precedent is going to rebound back with some serious unintended consequences if this lawsuit is pursued and won, especially in light of the fact that neither the defense lawyer, nor the private investigators he hired, were ever charged with, much less convicted of a crime.

[ET Awful]

26. Dumpsterdiving against corporations is vastly different than invading

invididual privacy.

We are after all talking about a minor here, not a corporation.

Standing in front of her school, yelling her name, telling other students who she was and why they were serving her papers? All of those are well beyond what is required by law.

What you suggest results in future victims of such crimes being afraid to come forward even more so than they already are. If they know that regardless of laws protecting their names, the defense will be able to legally publicize their names anywhere they see fit, what girl will come forward to tell her story?

You're saying she shouldn't sue someone who despite the fact that she is listed on all court documents as Jane Doe, publicized her name throughout her community, and even followed her to a new school to publicize her name there?

[MadHound]

35. No, it's not different at all

Trash is trash, no matter who it comes from, it is all fair game. That is why the police can seize your trash without a warrant, as soon as it hits the curb. If this is upheld, then a precedent will be made, and one wouldn't be able to go through the trash of anybody, corporate or human.

And again, if the investigators were doing such things as this woman claims, then why weren't they arrested? Were there any witnesses? I'm sure that if somebody came on to the campus of my local high school and started screaming anything, there would be multiple witnesses, and the cops would be there to bust them in two shakes of a lamb's tail. Instead, not only are there no arrests for these supposed actions, but there is no legal record of them taking place(and I'm certain that if these actions were taking place, somebody would have been contacting both the judge and the state bar about them). And yet it seems like the woman doesn't even have any witnesses to such incidents:shrug:

Think friend. If you take away these legal tools of defense attorneys, then a horrible precedent is set, one that can come back and rebound onto you.

But hey, I suppose we'll find out during the trial. My personal opinion is that the victim is bringing these charges against the defense lawyer simply because he was taking an aggressive approach to the case. But hey, that's what all good attornies do, act aggressively.

[ET Awful]

37. Ummm, there are witnesses to the behavior, there are copies of the

posters that he put up listing her name publicly.

I'm happy that you're so concerned, but once again, using your methods, no minor would ever come forward again to report a rape.

[MadHound]

46. Umm, unless you are using sources that aren't linked to here

All I'm seeing about posters is that they materialized in her neighborhood. Not how they got there, not who put them there, etc. Nor does the article mention anything about witnesses to any of this. And quite frankly, knowing how public schools work, I must reiterate that if indeed this lawyer or one of his hirelings was in the parking lot and screaming out anything, much less this sort of info, that person would be arrested immediately.

We quite frankly don't know the truth or validity of any of these accusations. That's all they are, accusations. Frankly, if all this went on, I'm suprised that it is coming out now. Why not during the criminal trial, it seems that such accusations would be much more effective to unleash during the criminal trial:shrug: Or at least, file these accusations with the state bar association, get the guy disbarred. Something, anything other than bringing it in on a civil trial where it looks like the woman is being petty and vindictive about a defense lawyer doing his job, defending his client.

And no, I don't want to discourage a minor from coming forward to report a rape. But again, such a message to encourage other minor rape victims would be much more effective when filed as a criminal charge, where the full weight of the law could be used to discourage such tactics. Instead, again, all these charges look like now is an attempt by the plaintiff to "get" the defense attorney for doing his job.

[ET Awful]

49. Posters asking for more information and providing a phone number?

You may not want to discourage minors, but that's what you're doing.

As to it coming out during trial you're discussing a trial that gave people 6 months for gang rape. As to getting the attorney disbarred, that's much easier once you have a judgment against him in a civil action. Have you read this? http://pinkofeministhellcat.typepad.com/pinko_feminist_hellcat/oc_rape_case/index.html Maybe you should look at her account instead of the "blame the victime" attorneys.

Petty and vindictive? Are you kidding me? SHE WAS FUCKING GANG-RAPED. Let's see how "petty and vindictive" you are once you've had a pool cue and a Snapple bottle shoved up your bodily orifices.

[MadHound]

53. Again, you are using a source here that isn't linked

Could you, in the interest of fairness, link to this article that you are sourcing?

As to the poster asking for more information, and providing a number, whose number was it? The lawyer's, whose:shrug: And please, source this for me, since I see no links to such sources on this thread.

And no, frankly if you are in the middle of a trial, and the defense attorney is breaking the laws in such ways as she claims, it is always, ALWAYS better to bring such issues up immediately. Doing anything else is just asking for a huge legal mess, a retrial, a mistrial, all kinds of fun. If she brought these issues to the prosecuting attorney, them I'm sure that he would have brought them up before the judge. However, given the sources that I see on this thread, it doesn't appear that she took any such action.

And yes, I do realize that she was gang raped, OK. No need to jump down my throat here, alright. All I'm saying is that judging from lack of evidence here, lack of witnesses, lack of criminal charges against the defense lawyer or investigators, it does indeed appear that this woman is being petty and vindictive against the defense attorney and the investigators, merely for the fact that they were doing their job.

I'm not saying this about the already convicted rapists, OK, got that. I'm saying this only in the case of the defense lawyer and the investigators. They were, as distasteful as it might seem to you, simply doing their job as well as they good. Yes, they were aggressive, yes, they were tacky. But they were also provdiding their clients with the best possible defense that they could. If we penalize defense attorneys for doing such, then as I've stated before, such things could come back to bite anyone of us. This isn't a good precedent to set.

[ET Awful]

57. Did you even read my post?

There's a link in the post.

A little hint for you, a civil action does not require criminal charges. The criteria for a decision in a civil action is different than a criminal action. In a civil action, a judgment can be rendered based on a preponderance of the evidence. It is much easier to prove than a criminal.

I'm not the one that chose the words "petty and vindictive" that was you. Very few defense lawyers find public humiliation of victims to be part of their job. It's not legal and it's not ethical. A judgment in a civil action could very well result in this attorney being disbarred, and that's exactly what should happen.

You aren't penalizing an attorney for doing his job in this case, you're penalizing him for overstepping his bounds. I have an odd feeling that if a prosecutor was doing the exact same thing, you'd be singing a different tune. BTW, did you know that the California Supreme Court has ruled that garbage can not be searched without a warrant in criminal proceedings? (see People v. Krivda).

So what you're stating is basically that you believe that defendants are entitled to more rights than victims.

[MadHound]

76. Yes I did read your post

And the link you provided was a first person account of the incident.

Yet it still doesn't mention who hung the flyers throughout the neighborhood, it doesn't provide a witness who saw the lawyer or investigators hanging them. And while she does mention that she was cornered in a police parking lot by one of the investigators, again there are no witnesses, which I find amazing, for if such an incident happened in my little police station parking lot, a policeman or five would be out there immediately wanting to know what was going on, and the whole incident would be on camera. Yet none of this is mentioned. In fact, reading her account, the flyers were hung by agents acting on behalf of the rapists, not on behalf of the lawyer.

In fact the only incident that mention witnesses is when the woman was served with papers at her new school. She says that she was humiliated in front of her new friends by the person serving the papers. Not a good thing at all, but unless circumstances are really whacked in her town, the person who serves such papers isn't her defense lawyer or one of the rapists, but it would be a court official, a legal process server. Generally this could be a cop or some other duly appointed official. Yet this person isn't mentioned in her lawuit as a defendant.

As far as searching garbage goes, yes People vs Krivda did find that it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Yet the thing is, that ruling was supersceded by California vs Greenwood, a Supreme Court ruling, which found that such trash searches are indeed constitutional.

And no, if this was about a prosecutor, I wouldn't be crying that he overstepped his bounds. And neither did this attorney. And the words petty and vindictive do indeed apply here for that is exactly what this woman is doing, being petty and vindictive. Sue the shit out of the rapists, by all means, and I hope she wins big. But I find that her lawsuit involving the attorney is petty and vindictive. The first trial wound up in a hung jury, and by all accounts the second trial was a close deal. I can see where she would be frustrated with the wheels of justice and how such matters played out, but you know, this is what the defense attorney does, he sows seeds of doubt, points out the anomolies, hammers the prosecution time and again. This IS their job, and they need the latitude to perform it. I'm fully cognizant that it is easier to prove matters in civil court, that is simply another reason I find this portion of her lawsuit so abhorent. Rather than doing the right thing and taking this lawyer on either during her criminal trial, or in a subsequent criminal trial, she is going to try and wreak vengance in the civil courts. And along the way, she is going to set a horrible precendent that will handicap future actions by all defense attornies.

Sorry, but I think this sort of action is wrong. Sue the already convicted rapists, by all means. But taking out after the defense attorney in a venue that is slanted in her favor, rather than bringing this up during her criminal proceedings just reeks of vindictiveness, anger at a person who was doing their job to the best of their ability. This isn't the sort of precedence we need, for it could back and bite us all.

[ET Awful]

88. There's a very large difference between doing your job to the best

of your ability and overstepping legal and ethical boundaries.

Little hint for you, ethics violations by attorneys are NOT criminal matters. They are civil matters, thus a civil case is the proper venue. You did know that, didn't you? After a civil judgment is obtained, it is much easier to present a case to the State Bar Association.

The job of a defense attorney is to defend their client, not torture their clients victim.

Sorry, but preventing an attorney from publicly humiliating a minor doesn't bite anyone, it prevents minor victims from being intimidated by defense attorneys.

I'm happy to see that you are more concerned with the rights of one morally bankrupt attorney than the rights of a rape victim though.

It takes a very small person to call a gang-rape victim petty and vindictive for attempting to gain justice against people who violated her even further after the original acts.

[MadHound]

93. Ethics violations can be presented before the state bar

At anytime. And yet the victim has yet to do so. Don't you think that it would be easier for her to win her lawsuit if she did have an ethics violation in her back pocket? And yet she hasn't pursued this avenue.

And frankly, there is little evidence that the defense attorney overstepped the bounds. Did he hit her hard on cross and in court? Sure. Did he dissect her life and everything connected with it? Absolutely. But this is the job that he was hired to do, and failing to do so would indeed leave him open to malpractice lawsuits by his clients, and ethics charges by the State Bar. Sure, having an aggressive attorney pursue a minor victim in a rape case isn't a pretty sight. But this is how our judiciary system works, and to pursue a civil suit against this man for simply doing his job has serious ramifications for our system of justice, none of them good.

A suit such as this will have a chilling effect on all defense attorneys, who will be hesitant to defend their clients to the best of their ability for fear of a future lawsuit from the plaintiff. Is this what you want, defense attorneys having to play on an uneven field with one hand tied behind them? For this is exactly the implications that this lawsuit holds for all defense attorneys.

That you are willing to throw our system of justice overboard so casually says a lot, none of it good. If the victim wins in this case, I really hope that karma is kind to you, and that you don't have to face charges with a hobbled attorney as your sole defense.

So, I suppose we'll have to wait and see, and until then agree to disagree.

[ET Awful]

94. Actually it would be easier to prove a case before the State Bar

if you already had a civil judgment.

I'm happy you're so willing to defend an attorney who would actually publicly reveal a minor victims name. An attorney who would have her served with papers at her new school (which she enrolled in for privacy), and whose agent would tell the students around her who she was and why he was serving her.

If you consider that an attorney just doing his job, then I sure as hell wouldn't hire an attorney who engaged in such behavior. That's not just doing your job, that's intimidation and harrassment.

Our system of justice does NOT involve harrassing minor victims of crime, it involves protecting them.

"Simply doing his job" is NOT what this man did. He engaged in behavior outside the courtroom designed to harrass, threaten, and intimidate the victim of a crime. He went WAY beyond what was required for the defense of his client.

If the victim loses in this case, I really hope that karma is kind to you and that you are never the victim of a crime, because you have just admitted that you would prefer that victims be so intimidated and threatened that they never come forward to report crimes. Why on earth would someone report a crime if they new they would be harrassed everywhere they went?

There are enough rapes that go unreported already, you are simply asking for that number to increase.

Fine, we shall agree to disagree. I'll continue to promote actions that will result in MORE victims of crime coming forward, not actions that will convince them that their lives will just get worse if they report the crime.

[MadHound]

97. From the victim's own account

"No one knew about my past, but that quickly changed when people hired by these men came to my school and stood in the parking lot screaming out my real name as I was walking with my friends. I was stopped by a man who served me papers right in front of my new friends. Then he proceeded to tell them who I was. I wanted to curl up and die. So much for no one knowing."

Note, please, that she references generic "men" in both cases. Now the men who were screaming in front of her school could have very well been hired by the rapists(as her statement indicates). And as I've stated before, I hope that she wins her case against her attackers. However, the vague "man" who served her papers in front of her friends has not been identified as the defense attorney. In fact the overwhelming number of courts, both civil and criminal, send out court officers, usually LEOs or clerks, to serve papers, just to prevent conflict before the two parties get into a courtroom.

Most people in our society are more than ready to demonize defense attorneys, thinking that most are a waste of time in the judicial process, at least right up until the time that they themselves are in the dock. It is sad to see that you are buying into this prejudice, not having both sides of the story, and using uncorroborated evidence.

The only evidence that the defense attorney in any way acted unethically is the victim's statement that she was cornered by an investigator(presumably on the payroll of the defense attorney, but we don't know for sure) in a police station parking lot. Yet oddly, in the most secure place in the city, there are no witnesses to this:shrug: Other than that one concrete incident, it seems like the victims main complaint against the attorney is that he acted aggressively on the behalf of his clients, which he is bound by law to do.

You start handicapping defense attorneys in the manner that this case will set precedence for, we will quickly find our country sliding down the slippery slope to kangaroo courts. You may be comfortable with that, but I'm certainly not. Yes, it is difficult to watch a defense attorney tear into a victim on the stand, dredging up all the corners of her life that food manners and common decency say should be left untouched. But the man is doing his job here, and to bind him in such a manner that he can't perform his job fully would be an even greater injustice to this country.

[ET Awful]

99. Little hint for you. . . people that serve papers are hired to do so

by attorneys. As such, they are acting as the agent for that attorney. Thus, the attorney is liable for their actions, the same as if said agent was an employee of the attorney. In my 8 years as a paralegal, other than small claims matters, I never once saw a document served by an agent of the court. Without exception, every document was served by a process server, who is paid by the attorney. In some cases, we paid sheriffs deputies to serve papers, as they are licensed process servers in the State of California.

You are handicapping victims by stating that it's perfectly legitimate to intimidate them by any means the defense deems necessary.

So tell me, what exactly is your proof that there are no witnesses? Other than your personal opinion?

BTW, you did know that defense attorneys are barred from bringing up prior sexual history in rape cases didn't you? It's called the rape shield law.

I'm not demonizing defense attorneys, which is why I never used a blanket statement, and in fact, defended most defense attorneys. Most defense attorneys do NOT make a concerted effort top humiliate victims at their schools, homes, or by having them tailed by investigators.

Once again, there is a large difference between doing his job and overstepping ethical boundaries. Your contempt for victims rights is obvious.

[MadHound]

105. Well, in most other places that I know of

Papers are served by court officers, but hey:shrug: Either way, from the witnesses own account, it was some vague "man", not the defense attorney. Why doesn't the victim go after this "man" whomever it was rather than going after the defense attorney who may or may not be connected to this:shrug: Perhaps it is because the defense attorney is the one with the money in this case?

And since I'm arguing in defense of the defense attorney here, where is your proof that there ARE any witnesses? None of the accounts sourced here state anything about witnesses. Has she subeoned the "investigator" to turn over the pictures that he supposedly took? We don't know. But frankly the burden is on the victim to prove this case and come up with these witnesses, not the defense attorney's.

And yes, I realize that defense attorneys are barred from bringing up prior sexual history, thank you. Apparently the defense attorney in this case didn't step over the bounds, being as the judge didn't slap him down in court. Unless of course, you think that the judge was in on this conspiracy and needs to be sued also:eyes: It would be nice to see the court transcripts in this case to see what really took place during the trial.

And no, I'm not trying to handicap the victims here, but it seems that you are more than willing to handicap future defense attorneys. Sorry, but the attorney was indeed, as much as you dislike it, being aggressive and doing all he could for his client. He is bound to do so by law, though it seems that is a law you're willing to overthrow in your quest for vengance here. I'm not however, and again, while I hope that the victims soaks the rapist for everything she can get from them, frankly I think that the case against the defense attorney gets tossed. For him to be held liable in this case would weaken legal defense everywhere, when every attorney is worried by the thought that he or she could be sued by the victim afterwards for simply doing their job.

So I suppose we shall have to wait and watch the outcome in this case. Let us hope that it is for the best

[ET Awful]

108. And "for the best" would mean assuring that victims are not afraid

to come forward for fear of having their names publicized by people employed by defense attorneys or defense attorneys themselves.

If it happened in a public area (such as a school) in front of other students, there are witnesses, it's that simple. For you to immediately assume that there are none proves your bias.

You are simply showing that you have more concern for a defense attorney who has engaged in less than ethical behavior than you do for the victim of a crime.

I'm more concerned with the victim in this case than I am with a defense attorney who deserves to be disbarred for activities conducted OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM which is what he is being sued for. Of course, you continue to ignore that by saying "he was doing his job." The lawsuit has nothing to do with his conduct inside the courtroom as is clearly stated by the article. It revolves around his activities outside the court designed to intimidate and harrass the victim. That's a far cry from him "doing his job".

Most defense attorneys don't engage in the tactics this person used, and most are quite good at their jobs. You don't need to harrass and intimidate a victim to prove your case. If you do, you're not worthy of your license to practice law.

Prohibiting a defense attorney from paying others to stalk a victim isn't weakening defense anywhere, it's strengthening the rights of victims to be secure in coming forward. Being a defense attorney is not an excuse to be morally and ethically bankrupt.

[MadHound]

111. No, I'm concerned with actually having proof that a defense attorney

Actually engaged in unethical behaviour. From the lack of actions by the judge(s) in the two criminal cases, from the lack of anything being brought before the State Bar, from the unverified statements of the victim, I see no proof that this attorney actually engaged in any unethical behaviour.

You on the other hand are more than willing to jump in and lambast this defense attorney, even without any legal proof that he's done anything wrong. Sorry, but don't you think that if he was doing anything wrong, in or out of the courtroom, that the judge would have been informed during the trials and acted on it? Instead, you are taking the victim's statement at face value and are ready to hang the attorney before this case even goes to trial.

The victim in this case has yet to provide any witnesses to the events she claims happened, nor any corrobarating evidence. Don't you think that there is just the slightest possibility, just the slightest, that the reason the victim included the defense attorney in this lawsuit is because he is the one with the most money? The rapists certainly don't have any, they're kids, and they're going to jail. The investigators probably don't, they're working stiffs. But a successful defense attorney, now there's some cash there.

I suggest that we keep an eye on this trial, and see what is brought out as evidence. If it turns out that this guy was acting like an out of control ass, then I will gladly reverse my position here. However if it turns out that the case against him is baseless, will you be willing to reverse yours?

[ET Awful]

117. Once again, ethics violations aren't criminal matters, why would

a judge in a criminal case make a ruling?

Your only basis for your assertion is that the judge in a criminal matter didn't render a civil judgment, so there must not be anything to it.

She hasn't presented witnesses? I'm not sure how familiar you are with actual legal proceedings, but typically, you produce witnesses after you file suit, not before. You see, ESPECIALLY in a case where you are alleging harrassment and intimidation, you don't immediately let the person you are suing for such behavior have the opportunity to do exactly the same thing to witnesses. You typically don't present evidence prior to filing suit either, that's part of the discovery process in civil trials (I've been involved in many civil trials over the years). See, the procedure isn't "Hey, here's my evidence and my witnesses, I want to file suit." It goes more along the lines of:

a) Demand cessation of behavior which would result in suit (whether this behavior is non-payment of moneys due, harrassment, slander, whatever, same procedure)
b) If behavior does not cease, initiate legal proceeding by filing complaint.
c) Defense file Answer to Complaint (or Motion for Summary Judgment or one of several other initial filings that are designed to stop litigation at the outset)
d) The discovery process begins. This includes depositions, demands for production of documents, etc. This is the stage where evidence and witnesses are produced.
e) The trial takes place and a decision is rendered by a judge or jury.

That's a very minimalist breakdown, but that's how civil cases work.

I like how your assertion is now that she's just after money. Another very common accusation against anyone who dares to shake up the system by attempting to see justice done.

[MadHound]

120. Thank you for the condesending explanation

Not that I needed it mind you, but it does inform me once and for all that you aren't interested in debating or arguing this issue logically, calmly or civily. Instead you are trying to overwhelm the issue with emotion and appeals to sympathy. Perhaps this is why you are a paralegal rather than an attorney:shrug:

I'm done with this, you obviously do not want to listen to logic, reason, or God forbid, a differing viewpoint. No, you are convinced, even before the case is heard, of who is right and who is wrong. Damn, just damn.

[ET Awful]

124. You're the one who seems convinced that a defense attorney can do

no wrong whatsoever.

You're the one who is unfamiliar with civil litigation procedure.

You're the one who is so adamant that a victim of a gang rape couldn't possibly be telling the truth about her treatment outside the courtroom by defense counsel.

I've presented you with fact, you've presented nothing but your over-zealous belief that the defense attorney can do no wrong because he was just doing his job.

Tell me who is convinced before the case is heard, the one who says that the case has no merit and shouldn't be brought (that would be you), or the one who says the case should be brought and actually can explain how civil litigation works?

I'm not the one who said "he was just doing his job." That was you. That sounds more than anything else like a statement of someone who has already decided the case without knowing any facts.

Logic and reason typically involve actually paying attention to what's being said instead of just repeating "he was only doing his job" and "this will hurt defense attorneys."

As to your personal attacks about "why you are a paralegal rather than an attorney," I'll let that slide. First, I no longer do either, I'm an IT administrator. I found computers more interesting in the long run. Second, I had to work for a living from the time I finished school, I went straight into the military, then into the workforce. Some people don't necessarily have the time or inclination to go to school for years. So, you can save your personal attacks and snarky comments.

You dare to talk about logic, calm and civility after your numerous posts defending an attorney who engaged in exactly the opposite behavior against a minor victim of a gang rape? You might want to think about that a little.

[Fleshdancer]

17. Oh dear Goddess....that poor woman.

Her ordeal is never ending. I'm glad she's fighting back though...I can't imagine how hard this must be for her but it has to be done. Who knows how many other people were hurt and harassed by these assholes.

A lit cigarette? Hopefully she didn't sustain any permanent damage from the rape. :( Could you imagine finding out your son tortured someone like that? damn.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

25. Sadly...

Most of the time all the parents are concerned with is keeping the facade that their family name is on the level and their child is still the 'good' child. Most likely a contributing factor to the children ending up that way...

[bloom]

45. And the one- a son of an assistant Sheriff

- an assistant Sheriff who obviously has no concern for the law. How do assistant Sheriff's get to be wealthy, anyway? Seems rather odd. If he was wealthy to begin with - why did he want to be assistant Sheriff?



For a collection of posts on the case:

http://pinkofeministhellcat.typepad.com/pinko_feminist_hellcat/oc_rape_case/index.html

[Xenotime]

21. G.O.P. S.O.P.

[warrens]

30. If those attorneys did this

They belong in jail, disbarred and all their assets in Jane Doe's bank account.

[pitohui]

41. what hell she went thru

i hope she makes the bastards pay a high price, god knows she has

[roguevalley]

50. a jury can say getting a cigarette and a pool cue up your body

when you're unconscious is not RAPE!?!?! Motherfuckers!

I hope she gets them and I would drop a few thou if they
gave me their testicles in return. Personally, if I was a
mom to someone like that, they would have to find a new
mom. Forever.

[TheBaldyMan]

101. was there some mention of jury intimidation in this case ?

I won't be surprised given the Sheriff's track record. He had been battling for years to keep his retard of a son out of jail.

[geniph]

52. Me, I just want to know one thing:

How many people believe that if her assailants had been African-American males from East L.A. rather than wealthy white boys, that they'd have gotten only three years?

[Gormy Cuss]

56. or if she were a low wage worker for one of the parents, how many believe

the boys would have even seen the inside of a court room?

[LostinVA]

72. Hoo boy... they would be serving hard time for a long time...

[knitter4democracy]

55. Rancho Cucamonga?

That's where my mom grew up and where her dad's chicken ranch was (now sold to be condos).

That's truly disgusting--paint the victim as the problem. She was passed out!!! They're sick ducks for doing anything to her both with the rape and afterwards.

[mzmolly]

62. This is on MSNBC now.

Very interesting. I hope she helps set a precident! WTG Ms. Doe!

[rman]

64. "family values"

manifest hypocracy

[ET Awful]

66. You know, it's really disgusting the number of folks on DU who share

the blame the victim mentality of the defense attorney in this case.

I would have expected more here.

[LostinVA]

67. This always happens -- ALOT of misogynists on DU

They always come out of the woodwork on certain threads...

[Ufomammut]

69. Guess I've been "Tsk-Tsk'd"

Spin my posts however you will, but speculation on the defenses version of events in the discussion doesn't place the "blame" on this girl for enduring what she did ...irrespective of what she may or may not have went to the boys' house for to begin with, or your seemingly zealous belief that there are no teenage girls who engage in sex acts that you're opposed to. I don't know about you, but when I was that age, I did a lot of stupid shit, and knew plenty of others who did as well, and sometimes things go wrong by degrees, and, realistically, it's one way that we learn from experience, through our mistakes.

Now, right away, you think that I'm saying that as an excuse for what these goons did to her, right? WRONG.

She may have made a really bad choice, not unlike any average choice that any number of teens might make, and unfortunately, it went very, very wrong for her. However, pointing that possibility out in no way equates assigning "blame" to her for what happened. Are you truly unable to distinguish those points?

Something that doesn't make much sense to me, though, is this:

"She said she found out about the attack, which she did not remember, after Newport Beach police informed her father..."

Now, after enduring multiple violations as she did, how could she possibly not realize that 'something' had happened?

Psychological trauma? Denial and repression? Very distinct, real possibilities, just as it is that she may have had a very real motive to obfuscate or lie, as un-PC as that may sound.

[bloom]

71. What "Bad Choice" did she make?

That she trusted her friends?


Unfortunately for the rapists - they documented their crime.

Why is so difficult for some men to accept that men commit crimes like that? It has to be something she did. :eyes:


It's damn ridiculous. That's what. The "boys" should have gotten 30 years.

[Ufomammut]

79. Major blind spot

It's as if by suggesting that she made a bad choice in choosing friends, made a bad choice in going to their house - whatever her intentions - is enough to suggest that I'm claiming that these thugs didn't commit the crime, and that I'm suggesting she deserved what happened.

It's ridiculous: she could have gone to their house for the reasons the defense state, and from that point, was taken advantage of and victimized. Why is that such an improbable scenario? And you conveniently disregarded the fact that she is claiming that she was completely unaware that anything had even happened to her until someone told her about it. That doesn't sound a tad odd?

You ask, "Why is so difficult for some men to accept that men commit crimes like that?" ...and are directing at me.

I'm suggesting that if you understood any of the views I've expressed in this thread (which you have not), you'd have no problem understanding that I'm not suggesting as such. It's not my fault if you can't grasp that.

Yes, the boys are guilty. The way these incidents work is that it was likely one ruthless jerk who instigated this tragedy, and through peer coercion, the others "went along." That makes them no less guilty. However, this isn't a case of, say, this girl was walking down the street, a car pulled up, these goons forced her in, drugged and raped her; they were "friends." Think back to when you were that age: everyone knew full well who the asshole jock-jerk types were, and everyone knows that there will always be some girls who are attracted to jerks like that. So, yes, she may have went to their house for the purpose the defense sites, but that doesn't mean she's to blame for what they did to her. If you look at the case objectively, that is plausible.

[PassingFair]

100. Does a cub scout make a "bad choice"

when he goes camping and is raped by tentmates or a leader?

If you fall asleep, or are drugged, or have too much to drink
and pass out, and your companions RAPE you, is that down to
your "bad judgement"?

You are indeed blaming the victim.

For your information:

I have had sex THOUSANDS of times and suffered no physical pain or after effects.
The vagina is an expanding, flexible orifice.

[Ufomammut]

115. That's true, and had you taken the time to read my posts

You'd know that I've already suggested the possibility of psychological trauma as blunting her recollection of events. However, as stated, she apparently had a lit cigarette used against her, and sodomized with a bottle. So.....see where I'm going with that?

[pitohui]

121. i see where you're going with that all right

classic blame the victim

"she wanted it"
"she shouldn't have been there"
"she didn't report right away so it never happened"

go back to the 50s

again i say if your mom went to a well-to-do friend's house, even if she arguably may have been hoping to get some sex off that friend, and it turned out a lot of guys were there, and she was drugged, raped, and filmed...would you still be nattering on the same tired arguments rebutted by rape victim's and feminist's movement in 1978?

this girl is just as real as you or i

[ET Awful]

125. Thank you for bringing another voice of reason to the discussion.

This whole blame the victim thing is growing exceedingly tiresome, not to mention nauseating.

[pitohui]

130. thanks

i know we don't always see eye to eye, but crap, this seems pretty basic decency to me

[bloom]

139. I think it's you that is blind

Just because a young women has agreed to have sex with certain people in the past does not give them any more latitude to rape her than if she "was walking down the street" and didn't know them.

You seem awfully willing to believe whatever the defense tried to use against her.


"...As all this illustrates, at every step of the way, in our system, there are actors who can bend the law to prevent rapists from being punished - especially if those rapists are rich, fresh-faced, white boys. Even in a case where the evidence seems overwhelming, some of these actors will try to find ways to let rapists off - and in many cases, they'll succeed. As long as human actors implement the law, legal reforms will be very limited in their effect.

Real reductions of rape - and increases in the likelihood of convictions - may be accompanied by legal reforms, but they won't be caused by legal reforms. It's only by a massive alternation in how our society thinks of rape at every level - so that "boys will be boys" and "the slut defense" is understood by the average person, the average judge, and the average juror as not merely wrong but also repugnant - that real change will happen."

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/03/17/oc-rapists-sentenced-to-six-years-in-prison

[LostinVA]

73. She didn't make a bad choice -- she didn't do a damned thing

THEY are the ones that made the choice to be sociopaths.

I've stayed away from your posts, because ET was doing a great job, but I'm sick of this blaming a 16-year-old girl for BEING GANG RAPED, and then further violated by this fucking medieval process.

[ET Awful]

75. Spin it however you like, your entire argument comes down to one thing

Blame the victim.

That's all your posts boil down to.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

83. I think you need to take a deep breath for a moment here, and start

reading peoples posts. Most everyone here agrees that the rapists should get life imprisonment. And the girl obviously made a bad choice by going to that house. But who doesn't make bad choices? No one here is saying that it was her fault what happened. We're just saying that it was a mistake to go to that house. She made a mistake, but it's not her fault. Take a moment to tihnk about that. One can make a mistake without it being their fault. The fact she was raped was not her fault, but she did make a mistake. They were the ones that decided to drug and assualt her. You see? We're really all on the same side, so you can stop attacking people now.

[ET Awful]

85. Once again, how did she make a bad choice? She went to the home

of people she thought were her friends.

If you go to your friends house and are anally raped with a Snapple bottle, does that mean you made a bad choice? No it means you did what anyone would do and trusted the people you thought were your friends.

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm pointing out the entirely flawed logic that would lead someone to blame the victim of a rape.

The "bad choice" argument is no different than "she inticed them by the clothes she wore."

Perhaps YOU should read what was said above when he was repeating the defense argument that she wanted to make a porn video and such.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

90. Actually, I would agree that indeed, if such a scenario were to occur,

than I would say I made an EXTREMELY bad choice by trusting them.

Okay. Sorry if it seemed like I was flaming you for attacking others, I know what it's like to get caught up in a moment and things can come out that seem offensive but aren't intended to be.

That's the thing though. NO ONE is blaming the victim! No one thinks that it was her fault she got raped. We all think that those slimeballs should get life in prison. All we're saying is that she made a mistake by going to that house (whether she wanted sex or not. Up thread there is a debate about that). But to us, people can make mistakes, and have it be not one bit their fault.

mis·take Pronunciation Key (m-stk)
n. An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness.

(sorry if posting a dictionary definition makes me sound like an asshole. Not trying to be)

An error or fault resulting from DEFICIAENT KNOWLEDGE. She didn't know these guys were sickos. So, as I said, she made a mistake, but it wasn't her fault at all.

[Bunny]

95. I can see that you're trying to have a reasonable discussion about

this, and I appreciate that. I think my problem with your opinion is that you still characterize what ultimately happened to her as partly the result of a choice she made. Whether you mean to do this or not, it is still coming across as blaming the victim for making a bad choice. Women are especially attentive to this kind of language, we've had it thrown in our faces for centuries. I feel pretty sure you do not mean to do this, but I hope you can understand why it's still offensive.

If a drunk man walks down the street in a bad part of town, at night, waving a wad of money around, no one will be surprised if he gets robbed. He made a bad choice. But you won't see his name dragged through the mud, you won't see the perp's defense attorney besmirching his character, you won't see any possible past drunken behavior of waving money around thrown out for all to judge, you won't be asked to determine if he knew he was making a bad choice and therefore the perp shouldn't be held wholly responsible for it, etc. I think you get my drift. That's why any hint that she is even partly responsible for her fate is met with serious resistance, by me and others here as well. This type of smearing the victim ONLY occurs in rape cases. Why is that?

And, thank you for the comment on my bunny pic. He/she is not mine, but is nevertheless adorable.

[ET Awful]

96. Very well said Bunny

(and I'm a guy).

And yes, that is one damn cute bunny in your sig :P

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

98. I whole heartedly understand peoples feelings for the subject

and I generally try to aknowledge what people feel. Unfortunately, we may just have to agree to disagree though (I'm glad you took the time to discuss your feelings though). You see, because from your statement:

"I think my problem with your opinion is that you still characterize what ultimately happened to her as partly the result of a choice she made. "

I guess I kind of feel thats true. But not just in rape cases. In everything, our choices matter, and bad things can happen to us because of our choices, even if our choices were good ones or mistakes. What happened to her was absolutely horrible, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. And in my mind, that she was raped was just as much her fault as it is the fault of an innocent person who is murdered, attacked, or robbed. It isnt their fault at all. They made what would be a normal choice (in her case, going to a place where she thought she had friends). But the perps saw something about these choices and decided to act on them. It is completely the perps fault.

I'm gonna attempt to portray another situation where I think the person made a mistake (because of deficient knowledge of the future or people around them), yet it wasn't in the slightest their fault they were harmed.

Lets say that an innocent man is walking down the street in a crowded city, wearing an expensive suit and shoes because he had to go to an important meeting. Some slimeball see's him, and figures he's rich. He goes over, pulls a knife on the guy, and demands money. The guys gives it to him, and is knifed by the perp to prevent identification. The guy dies.

Is it the guys fault he was killed because he was wearing expensive clothing to help his career? In my mind, no. Yet, it was his choice to wear that clothing, even though no one could have thought he would get killed over it. You see, what I'm saying that even if it was a choice we made that led to something bad happening to us (like the girl going to that house, or a guy wearing expensive clothing), it isn't our fault that that happened. Both of thosewere normal choices, but sickos did something bad because of it

As I said in an earlier post, I don't think this is very well worded, but maybe you can get an idea of what I'm trying to say. . .

[Bunny]

116. I think you may have missed my point when I said that a rape case

seems to be the only one where the victim's behavior is evaluated, and the perp's culpability measured against it. An innocent man who is murdered for his money seldom has his character and/or behavior impugned as a defense strategy - and that is the big difference in our thinking.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

133. Ah, I didn't understand that point in your orignal post

thx for clarifying. I really don't have too much to say to that, other than it sadly seems to generally be true.

[Bunny]

134. Well, I'm glad we've discussed this amicably. I must say, as

anarchists go, you are indeed friendly. :hi:

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

137. lol, thank you.

Hard to not be friendly to someone with such a cute sigline :hi:

[Ufomammut]

107. Good points....

In keeping up on one's debating chops, sometimes it's helpful to play devil's advocate. I understand your point though about women being "attentive to this kind of language" as people's moods tend to color how they see the world.

Although I do maintain that the possible scenario outlined isn't all that remote or unlikely, given how teens are given to risky behavior and promiscuous sex, often in conjuncture with the want of being "liked," or "popular," and in our times, and in my estimation, invariably involves the influence of a pornographized culture that promotes females behaving in accordance with traditionally male-driven ideals of sexual roles.

[Heidi]

92. She didn't need to "realize" anything.

There was a videotape of the crimes.

[MrPrax]

135. Hear Hear

I was scrolling through this rather interesting little thread and I am chalking it up to (hopefully) legal students practicing their 'defense' chops...

But that is wishful thinking...I can't understand how they were acquitted in the first place, let alone, the posters using the same rhetorical 'strawMAN' tactics of Bush...

"Some people say...she didn't give consent, but there is video tape disputing this claim..." "Some people claim she didn't smoke, but yet she is clearly in possession of 'lit cigarettes'"

But then again, being from Canada, I'm kinda slow ;-)

[ET Awful]

136. Just as a point of fact . . . . they weren't acquitted in the first trial.

It was a hung jury. Big difference.

Okay, continue on. :)

[MrPrax]

141. Yer right...

hung jury...'leaning towards acquittal'--

Why am I thinking that this case has so vicious, so out of control largely through the efforts of Daddy, assistant sherriff ='code of silence', probably dipped a few unconscious teenagers (either sex) himself and then in the early morning hours dragged them out of the house, saying...'sure you can complain to the COPS, want me to drive you, slut'

Seems rather strange in these family value times where SWAT teams in California will MANhandle, seize and arrest cancer victims for pot, but cast a blind eye on this sick party house.

Should be a much wider probe...

[Swamp Rat]

70. Cut all their dicks off, including the lawyers.

Well, repukes want tough laws, so there you have it.

Nevertheless, if I was her father, none of those bastards would be alive today. :mad:

[bloom]

74. kick

[foreverdem]

78. How awful & tragic

I can't imagine an adult going through what she endured, let alone a 16 year old girl. I hope those pieces of waste get put away for life and if the victim needs any kind of help, i.e., counseling, that she gets it.

[Fleshdancer]

142. For anyone blaming the victim, try reading HER STATEMENT:

How anyone could read this statement without crying is beyond me. It's pretty long so I recommend clicking the link:

http://pinkofeministhellcat.typepad.com/pinko_feminist_hellcat/2006/03/oc_rape_survivo.html

I will relive forever in my head the morning that my father got a call from the Newport Police Department telling him they had a videotape of his daughter being gang-raped. I remember waking up to my parents standing over me, the look of horror and disgust in their eyes. My father asked me what happened on July Fourth and I told him, "I don’t know," because I couldn’t remember what happened to me.

That is when he grabbed me and he held me in his arms and tears rolled down his cheeks. He proceeded to tell me a videotape was given to the police that unveiled myself being brutally gang-raped by three men, the three men that I gave all my trust to and thought were my friends.

As the words slowly rolled out of his mouth, I began to shake violently. Before I could make it to the bathroom I collapsed on the floor, started vomiting. I was going into shock. My parents had to help me calm me down. After awhile I was able to stand up, but I couldn’t feel anything. I was numb to any thoughts and feelings. And unknown to me, I was going to stay numb for many years to come.

But at that moment, I didn’t want to believe what I had been told. This could not be possible, the detectives had to be mistaken. I was convinced my so-called friends were not capable of such a crime. But as I was rushed to the hospital to be examined by forensics, I was hit with the realization that I was no longer dreaming, this was real. My entire existence had been taken from me and thrown out by the choices and hands of three men I had given my friendship and trust to.

[Nikki Stone 1]

143. God, this is awful

And she should get every penny she can out of these bastards.

And when the rapists get out in six years, she should buy a gun for defense

[standup]

144. Let's hope the rapists find true love in prison

[NVMojo]

145. awhile back, one of the tv news shows covered this case and were

quite sympathetic to the assaulters...