Accuser vs Accused in Rape Cases

[Ken King]

Originally posted by cmcdanal
The victim's name may be part of the public record, but most people, even the nosiest of busy bodies won't go down to the courthouse to find out. Newspaper reporters will and do. The newspaper reporters covering the case almost always know who the victim is, but most newspapers make it a policy not to publish names. That might be a law in some states, but it's not a law that would stand up to a 1st amendment challange. It's just that most news reporters choose not to publish that information.

Depends where the trial was, it's getting so that you can find tons of stuff like that right here in the electronic world, sure to make more busy-bodies. And your statement about the media’s choice on publishing the names is in my mind BS, I see their motives as being directly in proportion to the potential for circulation increases. If it’s big news they will publish them, it’s all about money and sensation for them. I don't think they have ever, or hardly ever, cared about protecting a victim.

 

[Penn]

This is the part that frosts me:

Originally posted by Ken King
The fact that some scummy lawyers attack the victim with innuendo and lies in their defense is what is screwed up in our society. When nonfactual information is brought forth by a lawyer and it is later proved to be a lie then an action should be taken against the lawyer that furthered the lie.

In this case the news media have investigators scouring the countryside of Eagle County to interview anyone who has had even the remotest contact with this girl.

We gotta have dirt!!

These pukes are doing the best job they are capable of for Kobe's defense team.

But the one that still has me frosted is the Elizabeth Smart/Daniel Westerfield case:

What about when nonfactual information is produced in court that is known - beforehand - to be false?

Westerfields lower-than snake$hit attorneys tried to cut a deal with the prosecutors to show them where the body of the little girl was buried, in exchange for a life imprisonment sentence(instead of the death penalty).

That means they knew their client was guilty of murder!

And yet these two "attorneys" went into the courtroom, and during the trial attempted to shift guilt away from their client, falsely concocting scenarios whereby others could concievably have kidnapped this young girl and murdered her!!

As a defense attorney, I believe your duty is to provide the best defense for your client you possibly can.

But you don't create lies - lies you KNOW to be false- in order to get your client off.

I think attorneys such as these should get serious jailtime when this is found to be the case.

Proceedings like these just make a mockery of our judicial system, in my opinion.

 

[Ken King]

Re: This is the part that frosts me:

Originally posted by penncam
But the one that still has me frosted is the Elizabeth Smart/Daniel Westerfield case:

What about when nonfactual information is produced in court that is known - beforehand - to be false?

Westerfields lower-than snake$hit attorneys tried to cut a deal with the prosecutors to show them where the body of the little girl was buried, in exchange for a life imprisonment sentence(instead of the death penalty).

That means they knew their client was guilty of murder!

And yet these two "attorneys" went into the courtroom, and during the trial attempted to shift guilt away from their client, falsely concocting scenarios whereby others could concievably have kidnapped this young girl and murdered her!!

As a defense attorney, I believe your duty is to provide the best defense for your client you possibly can.

But you don't create lies - lies you KNOW to be false- in order to get your client off.

I think attorneys such as these should get serious jailtime when this is found to be the case.

Proceedings like these just make a mockery of our judicial system, in my opinion.

Hey Penn, drink more coffee and take the gingko. Elizabeth Smart was found alive and Westerfield killed Danielle van Dam.

 

[Penn]

Gosh are you ever right! I read your post and it struck a nerve. Dammit, I have been on here typing away with an empty coffee cup!

However, the thrust is still there; false testimony to get your client off should be illegal.

I'm going to go refill my coffee cup.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by penncam
However, the thrust is still there; false testimony to get your client off should be illegal.

I'm going to go refill my coffee cup.

Well I totally agree with your comments regarding lawyers. It is illegal for them to bring forth items that they know are not truths and in the Westerfield case one would think the lawyers were complicate in furthering a defense that they knew was based on falsehoods. A big ethics violation that should get them debarred as a minimum.

Now keep your cup full, okay.

 

[Dymphna]

Originally posted by Ken King
Depends where the trial was, it's getting so that you can find tons of stuff like that right here in the electronic world, sure to make more busy-bodies. And your statement about the media’s choice on publishing the names is in my mind BS, I see their motives as being directly in proportion to the potential for circulation increases. If it’s big news they will publish them, it’s all about money and sensation for them. I don't think they have ever, or hardly ever, cared about protecting a victim.

You can find the more famous cases on the internet, like the Kobe Bryant case, but not, let's say, Jane Smith of Callaway. Many media outlets say that it is their policy not to publish names of sexual assualt victims. If they have such a stated policy, they generally abide by it or they lose credibility. Less credible media outlets don't bother having a policy on it in the first place. This creates a dilema in some cases, such as Elizabeth Smart or those two girls kidnapped from a "lover's lane" in California last year, where they are all over the news because everyone is trying to find them and when they are found, it comes out that they were sexually assaulted. I still say names should generally be kept out of the news, but if it turns out that the "victim" is lying, they should be slammed all over the news.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by cmcdanal
You can find the more famous cases on the internet, like the Kobe Bryant case, but not, let's say, Jane Smith of Callaway. Many media outlets say that it is their policy not to publish names of sexual assualt victims. If they have such a stated policy, they generally abide by it or they lose credibility. Less credible media outlets don't bother having a policy on it in the first place. This creates a dilema in some cases, such as Elizabeth Smart or those two girls kidnapped from a "lover's lane" in California last year, where they are all over the news because everyone is trying to find them and when they are found, it comes out that they were sexually assaulted. I still say names should generally be kept out of the news, but if it turns out that the "victim" is lying, they should be slammed all over the news.

You might actually be surprised how many jurisdictions are now posting the cases. I suspect as they get more computer savvy there will be more doing it and it is rather convenient.

A missing person is a missing person and you need to know who is missing in order to help find them. At the point of looking for them no one knows if a crime has been committed or not and the motives are different.

My point is that if the media is going to plaster the name of a person that is simply accused of an act then they should also plaster the name of that accuser. In the media more often than not you are guilty until you prove your innocence.

 

[Penn]

Originally posted by cariblue
Don't feel bad. I wasn't able to do simple addition the other day.

Lol.. Thanks Cari. My mind was a-buzzing with the idea that defense attorneys can and do get away with this garbage and got the girl's name wrong.

But Ken, Bill O'reilly has been following this situation and it seems that neither the California BAR association or the state DA are willing to do anything to rectify this grevious wrongdoing.

If there was only one standout emotion in this case, well I'd think the parents of this little girl would be right up there in front.

What went through their minds listening to these attorneys giving this false information to the jury?

I'm not advocating it, but it is a wonder someone sympathetic to this family hasn't taken a gun and corrected the problem on their own.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by penncam
But Ken, Bill O'reilly has been following this situation and it seems that neither the California BAR association or the state DA are willing to do anything to rectify this grevious wrongdoing.

If there was only one standout emotion in this case, well I'd think the parents of this little girl would be right up there in front.

What went through their minds listening to these attorneys giving this false information to the jury?

I'm not advocating it, but it is a wonder someone sympathetic to this family hasn't taken a gun and corrected the problem on their own.

It might be a point of proof, the lawyers might have been asked by their client to look for a deal and the client might not have provided any of the details. Many defense lawyers don’t want to know if their client is guilty or not as it would impede the defense due to ethics rules and such. Something along these lines might not be a violation as it skirts around the edge.

 

[Penn]

I'll agree with what you offer as point of proof, however if Westerfield did not replace or change defense attorneys before the trial(and I haven't read about that), then these two would have had to have known Westerfield was guilty if they were the attorneys who went to the prosecuters with a plea for life imprisonment versus the death penalty, no?

 

[Warron]

I voted yes for a couple of reasons.

Many of you like to use the word victim to describe the accuser. But in these cases, where the primary evidence is one persons word against another, who the victim is, is not determined until the verdict comes in. A person can be a victim of false accusation just as easy as they can be a victim of rape. As such, if you are going to publish his name, then publishing the name of his accuser is justified as well. Even if you have supporting evidence that this women was raped, until you prove this man was the one who did it, he has not been ruled out as a victim as well.

Next, I do not support the view that women who are victims of these types of crimes are stigmatized to any significant amount in this day and age. Sure, there are those who blame the victims, but there are also those who will blame the accused regardless of what the court finds. Even if this guy is found not guilty by a jury, he will be treated as a rapist by many for the rest of his life.

So basically, my view is that if you are going to publish the name of the accused prior to a guilty verdict then the name of the accuser should be published as well.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by penncam
I'll agree with what you offer as point of proof, however if Westerfield did not replace or change defense attorneys before the trial(and I haven't read about that), then these two would have had to have known Westerfield was guilty if they were the attorneys who went to the prosecuters with a plea for life imprisonment versus the death penalty, no?

Not knowing the specifics of the alleged deal offering, or lawyer switching, I am unsure as to what went on and who could have been expected to know what. Many times lawyers will make a request that their client has brought to them to make a deal and that the client will offer up something the prosecution is looking for, such as an admission, in return. By forwarding the request the lawyer may or may not know what their client will be offering. Since the deal was turned down and the lawyers took the case to trial and argued a differing scenario it might just be that Westerfield never told them anything. Again, I don’t know.

 

[bottoms up]

I voted no, the alleged victims name should not be released. But I also think that the alleged criminals name should not be released either until a jury has found him or her guilty. You cannot undo bad publicity like this if you are found innocent, and if you are falsely accused or in this case, as I believe is the case, participate in a consentual act, you shouldn't have the entire world thinking you are a rapist when you are only an adulterer (not that it's much better, but it's not rape).

I think Kobe should settle out of court on the alleged rape issue (stating that doing so does not make him guilty, like they all do), then turn around and sue the twit for every penny he gives her in that settlement for damaging his reputation and causing him millions in loss of income from endorsements.

Then, his wife should sue him for divorce on the grounds of adultery and get everything.

 

[vraiblonde]

But I also think that the alleged criminals name should not be released either until a jury has found him or her guilty.

I'll go for that.

Here's your scenario:

Larry Gude is accused of molesting a child. His name is splashed all over the papers as an accused child molester. If you on these forums saw that, what would you think? Would you be shocked? Horrified? Would you be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until the case is decided in a courtroom? (I already know the answer to that because I've seen the reactions we give in other cases - Scott Peterson comes to mind.)

Now let's say he's found innocent of the charges. Do you go "*whew* Glad he didn't do that!"? Or is there still some doubt in your mind? Would you let him go back to being the same Larry we've been chatting with - or is he now, in your mind, tainted in some way?

A false accusation can ruin a person's life. If something like that DID happen to us, I have no doubt our kids would get harassed in school, people would be calling us with death threats, Larry's business associates would dry up. And even when found not guilty, there would still be that stigma attached.

Trying a case in the court of public opinion is wrong. Scott Peterson, for example, hasn't been found guilty of anything - he's still an innocent man. Yet he's also the butt of late-night jokes, excoriated in forums like this one and, in general, his life has been ruined. Even if he didn't kill her, he might as well have.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by bottoms up
I think Kobe should settle out of court on the alleged rape issue (stating that doing so does not make him guilty, like they all do), then turn around and sue the twit for every penny he gives her in that settlement for damaging his reputation and causing him millions in loss of income from endorsements.

You don’t “settle” a criminal case out of court, even a plea-bargain is brought before the judge. What you are suggesting is that Kobe should offer an Alford plea indicating that the evidence is such that the likelihood of him being convicted is too great to risk a trial regardless of his innocence. That would be a dumb move as the conviction and associated penalty would be there and that would probably prevent him from being successful in seeking civil damages.

 

[Otter]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
A false accusation can ruin a person's life. If something like that DID happen to us, I have no doubt our kids would get harassed in school, people would be calling us with death threats, Larry's business associates would dry up. And even when found not guilty, there would still be that stigma attached.

True that, case in point is the "Little Darlings Daycare(?)" in SC or NC a few years ago, those people were ruined and I believe they found that the children were led/coached into saying all these vile things by the investigators.

One way or the other, both names made public or neither until after the trial.

 

[bottoms up]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Now let's say he's found innocent of the charges. Do you go "*whew* Glad he didn't do that!"? Or is there still some doubt in your mind? Would you let him go back to being the same Larry we've been chatting with - or is he now, in your mind, tainted in some way?

I think that both victim and accused names in cases should be kept quiet except to each side until after the judge or jury renders a decision for that exact reason. You can't go back and undo a media frenzy if someone is wrongly accused and depicted in the media and society as a murderer, rapist, child molester, whatever. But I know that leaks do exist. I think this gets into that gray area of the publics right to know and a persons right to privacy.

Sorry about the mix-up with criminal and civil settlements.

 

[Penn]

Originally posted by Warron
I voted yes .

Many of you like to use the word victim to describe the accuser. But in these cases, where the primary evidence is one persons' word against another, who the victim is, is not determined until the verdict comes in. A person can be a victim of false accusation just as easy as they can be a victim of rape. As such, if you are going to publish his name, then publishing the name of his accuser is justified as well. Even if you have supporting evidence that this women was raped, until you prove this man was the one who did it, he has not been ruled out as a victim as well.

I'd been kicking around a reason why I voted "yes" and what I couldn't find a way to "opine" was what this passage says.

This case has not come to trial yet, much less a verdict been reached, and even though one person has been labeled a victim and another an accuser, it is yet to be determined which person fits the name.

We really don't know enough yet. Kobe Bryant has had a reputation that has been "squeaky clean" up until now, and this lady has been above reproach until now as well.

What we do know is that Kobe is not exactly "squeaky clean" anymore(admission of adultery)- but as far as the left feels, thats hardly a chink in one's armor.

The lady has had some emotional stability problems with lost lovers, ie., ODing on sleeping pills, but is that fact relevent to this case?

Another point to ponder: Everyone in Eagle County, Colorado(and probably the whole state)knows the identity of this lady; so the rest of us knowing her identity is going to make things worse?

 

[Larry Gude]

Replace...

I voted "No". I feel every possible victim of every crime, as well as their families, have a right to privacy as well as time to heal, without having reporters hounding them and their neighbors and co-workers poking around in their business making assumptions about the kind of person he/she is.

..."every possible victim" with "every possible" perpetrator.

If that is logical and fair, then isn't Kobe entitled to the same sort of annonymity UNTIL he is proven guilty???

If you don't feel violated enough to stand up and shout out to anyone and everyone that "That SOB right there RAPED ME and I want him to never be able to do that to anyone ever again!!!"
then go away. I don't want to have my judicial system used to support people who are ambivalent about what may or may not have happened to them when we are talking about a violent crime.

Rape is one of the more vulgar crimes a man can commit and as a man I want his balls cut off and shoved up his ###. Because I feel so strongly I also want her to suffer criminal sanction for false allegations. This is serious to me.

If Kobe did what is alleged, then rot in hell. And she should be proud to be the one to see him fry, if not for herself then for a victim she saved.

If she is making this up then, may she rot in hell.

If it is somewhere in between, rough consensual sex, some jilting or scorn, well, we got us a problem and how the hell is it fair for him to be publicly called a rapist by someone who will not even stand up for the charges?

I would want my daughters to raise Holy Hell and you can be sure I want their attacker on a slab.

This case stinks and right now, the focus is on this girls feelings while Kobe twists in the wind.

I didn't see a rapist in that news conferance. I saw a man who was ashamed for betraying his wife. I saw a man who was not looking forward to being alone with her for awhile.

Am I crazy?

 

[Ken King]

Re: Replace...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
Am I crazy?

Of course you are, just not about this.