15-year-old raped in court: Rapist gets probation, teen gets 12 mo

Remove all ads!

Not once did I say that NOG's theory had anything more than a 0.0001% chance of being correct. But you are the one lying to yourself Chandos, if you can tell me with 100% certainty that she did not agree to have sex with this man. I don't know if this is the case, and as I mentioned many times previously in this thread I think he should have gotten a much longer sentence even if it was consensual, given his position of authority over Ashley.

We do not know what happened; that is my point. We don't know who Ashley is. We don't know if she agreed to have sex. We do not know, and you can not tell me that we do. We have a very limited set of facts and you're jumping to many hidden assumptions.

Edit for clarification here- We know that the woman's name is Ashley. We know she was charged with filing a false police report. We know the man was in a position of authority. We know he was charged with some degree of rape and punished with probation. We know the punishment scales for various degrees of rape in NY.

Why do you assume Ashley is the good one and the man is the bad one in this case? Why can't Ashley AND the man both be bad? The man is obviously not "good" if he has been charged with three cases of rape, I'm not arguing that. What I'm trying to say is that there is no way to know Ashley is an angel. She did not deserve what happened to her, but we don't know the circumstances of what did happen. (How, why, who initiated, what was promised, what was said.)


I was not defending rapists or blaming the victim. I think he should have been punished more severely, no matter what Ashley may or may not have done. The only thing I ever claimed was that his lenient punishment was in line with statutory rape opposed to a more serious under NY law form of rape. I'm not trying to be obnoxious with bold letters, however, I think you're misreading my comments and that point needs emphasis.

 

This is what you said:

Now you are saying this:

They seem to be rather different. I can agree that there is a SMALL possibility that all three cases may have been consenual. But that is far from saying that it fits JUST AS WELL AS a bad sentence." Excuse me for laughing, but it seems I've heard constant whining about "liberal activist judges" giving out lenient sentences to criminals who commit violent crime. In fact, didn't we have a thread about how women get off easier than men in instances of capital crime? Generally, it was seen by some as a "failure of the system." Now all of sudden the woman gets the harsh sentence and the man gets the light sentence and so it is no longer, "the liberal, activist system," but it must be that all the girls consented, and that is certainly just as good an explanation as a "bad sentence" by a liberal judge. Sorry, but I'm not buying into that BS hypocrisy.

You are the one doing the "jumping," unless you can explain what "forced assualt" means. There were three instances that we know of. Why are you ignoring that "fact" in the case? These are MULTIPLE counts. But I'm not alone because there seems to be a good deal of outrage over the sentence, especially in NYC, where the case has gotten quite a lot of media attention. I did a bit of looking on the web regarding how this is playing in the city where it happended. It seems to have created a stir. If there are "hidden facts" regarding this case they should be forthcoming since the case is under a bit of scrutiny, at least in the local area.

We have posted threads in the past of bad sentences, like the woman who starved her baby to death and only got probation. So stupid, bonehead sentences are just a matter of course -- until it suits a particular agenda, it seems:

Sorry, but the agenda is quite obvious by that comment.

 

Alright, I'll try and clarify some things I said.

Your emphasis bold, my emphasis italic.
"Maybe all of the sex was 'consensual,' as NOG is saying and the only crime was that they were underage."
I am not saying that the only crime was that they were underage, I'm saying that it's a very limited possibility. I think that is the point NOG was trying to make, not that it was very likely, but that because of our limited knowledge about this case, it is possible.

"This man's punishment surely fits NOG's hypothesis"
This is not a statement saying that this man's punishment was just or correct. This is a statement that says NOG's hypothesis fits the punishment the man received, nothing more, nothing less. There is no endorsement or taking sides.

No where did I ever say that this girl must be lying, that it was her fault she was raped or that the rapist should get off easy! Chandos, take a deep breath. I get just as angry about grown men having sex with 15 and 13 year old girls as you do. It pisses me off.

The only reason that I focused on Ashley in my last few posts is that earlier in the thread I had already assessed that from the very limited information we have about the man leads to the assumption that he is a scum bag accused of multiple rapes of minors and should be thrown in jail. I find it highly doubtful that all the girls consented to his sexual advances, I am not fighting for that point at all. It is simply a way to highlight what little we know about this case.
I don't know what assumption you think I am making about the man in this case, but assumptions are the opposite of my point. My point being that I do not know enough about what happened to say for sure one way or the other. Certainly it sounds very awful, and if it is truly how all these articles describe it then he should be serving a couple life sentences now.

The fact that he is not suggests two things to me: there was something corrupt going on, or the way the news articles spin this story is false. However, it is very important to stress that I do not know. I do not think any of us, without intimate knowledge of the situation can give an accurate answer to the question of justice.

I'm going to stress again that Ashley's punishment and the rapist's punishment are unrelated. They have no bearing on each other. I am looking at them as two completely separate sentences, which they are.

We know almost nothing about the man. If we had testimony from his other victims, and the girl who came forward, if we had testimony from the trial, if we had facts about what happened. Was he charged with forced assault in Ashley's case, or another case? [and for the lawyers, is a forced assault charge a rape charge?] What was he charged with in the other rape cases? These questions all rattle around in my mind when we talk about his case. Since I do not have answers to these questions (and if you do, please enlighten me) then I don't feel I can accurately describe his situation on anything but a basic level.
I can easily say: Any 40 year old man in a position of authority who has sex with 13-15 year old girls deserves to be in jail for a very long time.
If the details from your article are correct, he should have been charged with rape in the first degree. Why wasn't he? Is it corruption/botched cases?

Was there not enough evidence to prosecute him? (If this IS what happened, that they didn't have enough evidence to indict him of any rapes but he actually did rape those girls, then this is a horrible tragedy.)

When we talk about Ashley we know:
She was charged with filing a false police report and found guilty
-I may be wrong, but I am fairly sure you do not get 12 months unless someone else is falsely prosecuted with a crime because of your report or other extenuating circumstances.
-This may be completely innocent or this could be criminally inclined, we do not know.
She served extra time in jail
-This could be because she acted up or because of a corrupt system.

This could very well be a bunch of scenarios that fell through the cracks and were screwed up time and time again. (Corrupt judge in Ashley's first case, corrupt guards at her prison, etc.) Or there could be something we don't know.

I do not know enough about this case to say much for certain, but I can say all of the following with no doubt in my mind:

I'm glad that Ashley is out of prison and living a good life now with a son and husband. Whether or not she acted criminally, this still holds true.

The man should most definitely not have had sex with ANYONE in his custody, regardless of their age.

ANY man who has sex with a 13 year old child should be castrated and put in prison for life/put to death.

 

Now, you see, this would be a pertinant fact. This would be pretty definitive proof that my theory is wrong. Can you cite anything that says this? I've looked through all the posts and all the links, and all the news articles I could find, and I haven't found anything more than that he 'admitted' to rape, where rape in the third degree is statutory rape, not forceful rape.

Chandos, you really need to back away from this case. I was presenting a hypothesis, that I admitted relied on several assumptions. I have not tried to present it as fact, or even as highly likely, just to point out the possibility. I don't even really believe it myself, I'm just unconvinced either way.

So, does this mean you're admitting that the charge he pled guilty to may describe a consensual act (I'm still waiting to see anything concrete on what he pled to), or that you think he pled down to a lesser charge (though with the prosecutor's objections, I find that hard to believe unless the probation was a minimum sentence or something), or something else?

Scenario 1: heartless judge decides to let a multiple-time violent child rapist, who abused a position of trust and authority, walk. Maybe they worked together and he's the rapist's buddy? Maybe he even took a little action himself.
Scenario 2: criminal about to go to jail thinks she can get it in with the court counselor and get a reduced sentence, maybe even just probation. She's apparently not the first one.

Again, can you cite anything that confirms this was a violent crime? If the old woman is beaten and tortured to death, odds are it was a violent crime. If the young woman had a sexual encounter, it may or may not be. If it was, I want to see the dirtback castrated with a rusty spoon, and the judge shouldn't even be able to find work at McDonald's (assuming he's free at all). If not, that really does change everything.

Only if you already assume I have one. Which you always do, even when I've directly argued against the very agenda you apparently believe I have.

 

What is "limited" about our knowledge of this particular aspect of the case? You keep saying that, but what did you want, more details?
LIke this:

Is that what you want to see more of?

Yeah, I got that off one of 12 articles I read to discover a bit more about the case. Why don't you take the time to look it up? It's your theory and your agenda. The actual term used in that instance was "forced molestation," probably the young girl he forced to give him a BJ.

Where does the word "statutory" appear in any of the links above?

There is nothing wrong with the case and you know it. The case is exactly what it says it is, despite your willingness to try and change it to suit your agenda. It's you who are the problem, not the case. Why am I bothering to respond to someone who pretends he doesn't even know that rape is a "violent crime?" I believe our conversation is over. You've wasted enough of my time with your anti-woman agenda.

You dont have a theory. That's what happened.

 

Given that last quote of Chandos', that clinches it for me. This dirtbag admitted to doing some really, truly, nasty stuff. We could theorize 'til the cows come home that he was maybe forced/bullied into it, but we have zero evidence of that. While one or two girls might not be the most credible of witnesses, the fact that several girls came forward speaks to his guilt -- but not as loudly as his own frigging admission does! He did it, and even if the girls are lying like dogs* about the amount of force/coercion involved, he was in an authority position and he did this <snip> right in the courthouse. He deserves a helluva lot more punishment than mere probation. The reason for his light sentence is also debatable (though my opinion on it is pretty well set**) but the injustice is clear and IMHO undebatable.

*Which is possible but IMHO extremely unlikely.

** My opinion, for any who care to hear it, is that the legal system is so concerned with the rights of perpetrators that they cut lame deals with them so as not to trample on those precious rights. I am a big fan of rights, but I believe that when someone has done something heinous, his rights should not be used as a shield for that behaviour. I blame bleeding heart liberals for it, but I also acknowledge the existance of the "good old boys" club -- in police/correctional jargon, I believe it's known as "the blue line".

 

I agree, LKD. There was a 4th victim who came forward, but it was too late because of the limitations for them to include it in the counts against Simmons. They have opened a hotline for other victims to call in.

 

Chandos, if you had transcripts from the trial of him admitting to those three acts, why didn't you bring it up right away?

I would have completely agreed with you if that data was stated somewhere in this thread (I did not do a thorough background search, I thought it was pretty obvious that I was just commenting on the information presented in this thread.) When I said limited knowledge, I meant all we had was articles saying things. We also have articles saying aliens live among us and Obama is a terrorist. Does that mean they're true? A court transcript is something different.

As I said all throughout this thread, a rapist like that needs to be harshly punished. I only questioned whether or not the charges were true, because I've read enough articles making completely false claims to be wary. I'm far from having an anti-woman agenda. It makes me sad that you think I'm defending a rapist.

 

I have done my research, and I've found nothing of the like in at least 10 reports on top of the ones linked. You do realize, of course, that since you're the one trying to prove me wrong, it's your burden of proof, not mine? I can't prove that it didn't entail force unless I find some article detailing how this has all been a gross misunderstanding (not likely given the current sensation-focused media, even if it is true). You, on the other hand, could just link to the article you found that says it does. One of, I would think, many, if it's true.

It doesn't. However, "rape in the third degree" does, which includes statutory rape. If he were being charged with statutory rape, he'd be charged with rape in the third.

No, there's something wrong with you. Accusing me of being a rapist's apologist, accusing me of having a pro-rape, anti-woman agenda? Even after I admitted in my first post that this was just a possibility, and later admitting that I'm not even sure I actually believe it? You need to back off. Your emotions are clouding your judgement.

You know, I think we've gone over this before. Just in case, though, let me state it clearly to make sure you understand: STATUTORY RAPE IS NOT A VIOLENT CRIME!!!!!

So, just to be clear, what was he originally charged with, and what did he plead down to? The answer to at least the first can be found here. He was originally charged with nothing more serious than rape in the third degree, which can refer to statutory rape.

Now, the emphasized parts of your article don't tell us anything, but the last line says he admitted to forcing at least one girl, which then suggests he probably forced the other two as well. Given that, I'll refer you back to my post about a rusty spoon. You may have glossed over that in your witch hunt here, but it was there. While you're looking it up, could you post a link to that article?

 

No, I don't realize that. I don't need any burden of proof, since you are the one conjuring evidence and theories out of thin air. But I can undertand your consternation. All I need is every article that's been posted since they all support my postition. You, on the other hand, are out of luck....

I could if I felt like playing your games, yet I have all the evidence (which is every aticle that's listed, btw).

Except, he copped a plea, didn't he? And what does that mean again, regarding his sentence?

Oh, yes, much like those sleazy defense lawyers, who have no evidence, but just may suggest to the jury that All these under-aged girls are lying. They all consented to being sodomized, and BJs and whatever else that sick character forced them to do. R-i-g-h-t. You said this:

Your own words speak for themselves.

Yes, except that statutory rape has nothing to do with this crime. That's just something you made up.

Except that that's not he was charged with, is it?

Who is us? Do imagine that there is more than one of you now?

So now it's a "witch hunt?" How funny is that? Good thing you were not the judge in that case. You would have probably given Simmons a pay-raise instead of probation.

 

What evidence have I presented? I never claimed any evidence, save evidence that allowed for the possibility, which isn't really much evidence in my opinion.

No, I don't think you do. My consternation is not with your disbelief of my idea. Nor is it about any lack of proof of it. I accept both of those with perfect aplomb. My consternation is with your insistence on twisting my posts out of any recognition of anything I actually posted.

Funny. I haven't seen one that mentioned force. And I've looked through them all. Hell, I even used the find function just to make sure I hadn't missed something. Surprise, surprise. Not one of them mentions force. Anywhere. So, despite your BS claim that "all the evidence is on your side", you claim to be withholding the link to the only article that may provide decisive evidence. Why? Because you 'don't want to play my game'? Sounds to me like your the one playing games. That's childish at best.

It means he plead guilty to something else, but he was initially charged with rape in the third. We've been over this already.

Yes they do, except you're reading them wrong, because you don't like what they actually say. They state a given. If that given is, well, not given, then it's self-admittedly wrong. But you don't want that. You don't want to allow for the possibility that I presented a theory, a mere concept of what may have happened, with the full recognition that it may not be accurate, but just recognizing that it's a possibility that hadn't been considered yet. You'd prefer me to be some vile monster that wants violent rapists to get off and innocent victims to suffer. Maybe you'd like to claim I eat little children, while you're at it?

An assertion which, while you claim you have proof for, you refuse to provide.

I don't know, and apparently, neither do you. He was charged with rape in the third, which may or may not be statutory rape.

No, I simply imagine that there are other rational people here that don't jump to the most anti-government assumption at a moment's notice. Maybe that really is just my imagination, though.

...

...

Yes, yes I think we have a witch hunt. I even smell the torches, and that mucky stuff on the pitchforks must be the BS.

Chandos, you're wrong about me and my entire position on this thread. I'm not even trying to defend my theory. I've already admitted it was wrong. I admitted that possibility in my very first post:

I don't want to see violent rapists get off, I don't want to see child victims sent to prison. I'm not anti-woman, or pro-rape, or a rapist apologist, and I have no agenda in this except to see all reasonable possibilities explored. What I presented was a reasonable possibility: that the media is sensationalizing this over what it should be, making a mountain out of a mole hill, as they so often do, by simply not reporting a few key facts that could change our perspective on things. That possibility was explored and, with your help of a single link, could be rightfully felled. Since you appear apparently completely unwilling to do so, I did a little digging with part of the quote you provided (seriously, how hard would it be to link to the source you're quoting?). Here is the article. It's badly written, but we already knew that from your quote (the emphasis that the prosecutor never objected, followed up with the refusal to investigate a claim that he did). The only thing you were apparently hiding was the source: the New York Daily News. I don't know why. Maybe you thought I'd sieze on the fact that they're a tabloid (a term used for a format of paper, not necessarily the quality of the contents). I found this article covers that pretty well. As a result, I don't know that I respect them as major journalism, but I won't assume they'd outright lie about a documented fact of a criminal case.

By the way, I finally found that article in one of my searches. It was at the bottom of page 4. By that point, I'm generally trying to refine my searches, as the result fell between stfuconservatives.tumblr.com and www.myshqipvideo.com.

 

No, it isn't. I just won't play your endless game of nit-picking through every post, just to find something that will satisfy your ego. Sorry - been there, done that. No more. YOU advance a theory other than what is in the news story, you find the evidence for your theory.

Funny. I never saw one that mentioned "consent." Nor "statutory." So if its rape, and it doesn't say "statutory," could it mean having sex by force? See, that is a perfect example of your game playing. Get real.

Is that "statutory" rape? Does that say "consent" anywhere? You keep throwing that word around, like the more you use it, the more I will accept it. No way. I will not allow you to make those girls victims all over again with your insinuations. No way, no how.

Oh, no. YOU don't have an agenda. That's for damn sure. You could not even make it through a denial without admitting to one.

 

I'm going to make a few quick and concise points here.

That example is based on a simple logical fallacy. I (and I assume NOG) would answer "Yes, that could mean having sex by force."

The forced rape admission was for the 16 year old, that doesn't eliminate the possibility of Ashley consenting. It is highly unlikely because of his admission to force in one of the cases, but it is still a possibility. There is no insinuation. I am clearly stating that we don't know if the rape was forced. Chandos, unless you have secret access to security tapes or access to complete transcripts from the case, you do not know either.

You have to consider every possibility if you want the truth: if you walk in on a dead man with a gun in the room, you have to consider both murder and suicide no matter who he is.

No one posting here is saying that rape is right. No one posting here is saying any of these cases of rape are right. No one posting here is saying women should be punished to a harsher degree than men. No one posting here is saying men should be punished more leniently than women. No one posting here is making rape-apologist or anti-woman remarks.

 

In any rape case there is always a remote possibility of consent. Many of us have seen innocent people convicted of rape, even by eye-witness testimony. It is a completely pointless and futile endeavor to cover such ground, since it doesn't lead to the truth but to confusion - sometimes that confusion is intentional. I pointed this out in my example of defense lawyers who use such tactics to divert attention away from the facts of a specfic case to make jurors draw the same conclusions as you keep saying: "No one knows for sure" - reasonable doubt. It's a tactic, nothing more. It is not to "get at the truth," it is for just the opposite, to prevent the truth from being discovered rather than looking at the specific facts surrounding a specific case.

Simmons peaded guilty to it, but maybe he was lying, giving false testimony to the court.

Yes, for all legal and practical purposes we do know the rape was forced. I wish to be clear on that point.

Yes, sorry, there is.

That's just so lame. Really, I expected better from you. That's why we have investigations and a legal process of law, to reveal what happened (do I really have to explain this to someone of your apparent, high intelligence?). In many cases it is often touchy, because it is a matter of "she said, he said," but in this case that is not the problem, because Simmons admitted to committing the crimes of which he was accused.

Of course, you can say that Simmons is lying, the ADA is lying, the press is lying, and of course the girls are lying -- everyone is lying. NO ONE has said that it did not happen in the numerous stories and editorals that I have seen - NO ONE. Every one has called it rape, that Simmons "attacked" 3 girls, "forced molestation," "assualted" underaged girls, and there are proabably more, but lets just stick with what he was convicted on. Remember a 4th girl came forward but the limitations had expired,

But instead, I hear words from you guys like, "statutory" and "consent" -- words that don't appear on any documents that I have seen. Only you guys are using such terms, not even Simmons.

But really, your post reminds me of a Shakespeare line: "Me thinks the lady protests too much." The more you guys deny an agenda, the more I'm convinced there is an agenda. NOG has already admitted to part of the agenda; I think you really believe this rot.

---------- Added 1 hours, 27 minutes and 44 seconds later... ----------

I thought Gaear raised some interesting points at the beginning of this thread. The way in which the ADA's office wrote the charges did seem puzziling, yet the transcripts, according to reports, don't appear to suggest anything more than what the case is at face value.

I felt the same reaction, and had to agree that it was typical incompetence and the comments from the DA's office seems to bear that out, even though the DA blasted the judge, rather than his own ADA. The DA's position is highly political and I could not help but think of Bonfire of the Vanities as I was reading Vance's comments. But that seemed odd to me, as if there was a deal that Simmons would get at least some jail time, but someone botched that as well. But somehow it went to this:

I think of her as a victim, not a "complete punk," despite the urgent demands to the contrary. The institutions are supposed to set the standard for ethics. When young people see how corrupt our institutions are, with people like Simmons having authority over youths, you don't really have to ask yourself why young people like Ashley don't take our institutions, the law and the process of law very seriously.

 

Chandos, I'm not basing all of my opinions on internet articles from newspapers and random websites.

Our definition of evidence seems to be different: all we have is third and fourth-hand knowledge. If you had the actual trial transcript [not just someone saying "The transcript says x" I want to know how and where they got the court transcripts] I would be very interested.

I don't trust these articles, that is what it mainly comes down to. The only things I take as probable fact are quotations and more reputablel details of the trial, like that he was charged with third-degree rape. The article that said he pleaded guilty to forced rape has no source that I can see or any factual basis other than their claim. They don't even say where he admitted this and they're the only article to say he did. I'm simply not going to accept the NYdailynews as a factual representation of events.

The issue is not whether he should have been punished more. This guy should be in jail. For a long time. (I need to emphasize this because I am not defending rape, consensual or not).

Chandos, does consensual equate to "good" or at least "not bad" to you? To me it does not. Saying it was consensual does not change the fact that an adult man in a position of authority had sex with underage girls. Saying that it was consensual ONLY changes the sentence under NY law. Whether or not there is justice in New York law is another can of worms which we don't need to get into for the purpose of this argument.

I'm only trying to figure out WHY he got his sentence, I'm not arguing morality. Morally his actions were wrong and should be punished with more than probation, that is of no question to me.

I am not a lawyer, but I'm going to requote Gaear and attempt to analyze the charges:

1. I think this fits, but is trumped by First Degree Def. 2 for Ashley, and First Degree Def. 1 for the 16 year old.
2. Fits this trial in all three cases.
3. I'm not sure what fits into this category, honestly. (What factor causes lack of consent other than incapacity to consent? It's probably a legal technicality thing.)

1. I think this fits, but is trumped by First Degree Def. 2 for Ashley and First Degree Def. 1 for the 16 year old.
2. Could apply to one charge, in the case of the 13 year old.

1. This is the one you're talking about Chandos, and should one of the charges if the article is accurate.
2. Being in handcuffs would count as being physically helpless, I think, and could also fit Ashley's situation, though we don't know about the other two.
3. Doesn't fit.
4. Almost fits, but the girl was 13, not younger than 13.


Following this, if all the rapes were forced he would have been charged with three counts of rape in the First Degree, right? If we go by your article at least the 16 year old was forced, and Ashley said she was in handcuffs. That is at least two First Degree rape charges. The very least he should have been charged with, to my understanding, for raping a 13 year old girl in any way is Second Degree rape.

That's two counts of rape in the first degree and one count of rape in the second, at the very least. Why was he only charged with third degree rape, to which he pleaded down from?
That is the unanswered question. If everything these articles say are true, then what the hell happened?

The possible answers we've come up with in this thread are either lack of evidence at the trial, botched case/corruption in the court or that there is something we don't know.

I'm not arguing for leniency on rapists, Chandos. I promise you.

 

Chandos, will you give up on the idea that I'm trying to prove anything? I'm not trying to convince you that I was right. I've already admitted the opposite at least twice.

What, you mean exploring the possibilities, and eliminating one that wasn't right? Or do you mean that bit you took blatantly out of context, trying to portray me as driven to discredit the media (along with being pro-rape and anti-women), when I was simply trying to explain why I don't take everything everyone says as face-value fact?

While technically possible, I find it highly unbelievable. With the report actually claiming force in at least one case, I think it's safe to assume it occurred in the other two as well. My posts about statutory rape were made in the absense of any contrary evidence other than Chandos' unsubstantiated claims.

This is complete BS. Are you actually saying that, any time a woman claims rape, we should just jail the accused without trial? After all, you are saying that exploring other possibilities (i.e. that it wasn't rape) is a pointless and futile endeavor. More to the point, though, I wasn't challenging what actually happened. I was challenging the way it was being reported.

Once again, quoting me without context. I was not asserting a point of fact. I was proposing a perspective. One which may or may not be true. Once you get locked into one unproven perspective, you're making assumptions about the case without evidence. You seem to be an expert at that, though.

 

As I mentioned when Gaear brought this up, being handcuffed, or in some way physically restrained, typically isn't what is meant by being "physically helpless". Physically helpless usually refers to being unconscious. It was specifically put into the law to cover instances where a woman was not able to give consent because she was passed out drunk, under the effects of a date-rape drug or some other drug. I can understand why you can interperet being handcuffed as "physically helpless", but what it usually means is that it is physically impossible for the woman to give her consent.

 

Nope. I am not saying any such thing.

Well, yes. I suspected an agenda and you admitted to it.

It should be a matter of public record, which you should be able to access from the City of New York. So now I see your agenda is similar to NOG's: "The media is lying, case closed." So for every news story you require primary sources and primary documentation? Do you interview every witness and government official that you read about in the media, personally? Should newspapers come with footnotes and a complete biblography for every news story to satisfy your demands for "evidence?" I think you see the news media as a souce for entertainment, rather than a chronicle of record. That distinction depends upon the media source.

NO that's not true. Not at all. News stories are considered "secondary" sources. If I wanted to write a non-fiction book on this case, I would use both primary and secondary sources. News accounts in the media are often good secondary sources for writing extended works on both current events and historical events and are often cited, but are not enough on their own for extended pieces. But then I would be functiong as an investigative journalist or an historian, depending upon my objective. I would be performing a media function if I put together the primary sources of the case for scrutiny. Of course, you still would not have actually seen the sources yourself, unless I included a copy of the full transcript and court proceeding within the text itself.

Sorry, but Simmons and his lawyer did not challenge the stories, nor the accounts. Thusly, it would make sense that they are true. There is much that he could have included within the record regarding his defense and stated to the media to give his side of the story.

Then I suggest you request an offical copy of the court transcript, which should be a matter of public record. I don't believe the judge ordered them to be sealed. As to the matter of quotes, we have them from some of people involved in the acutal case. They usually have quotation marks surrounding them within the text. I found the DA's remarks a bit revealing. But then, you don't have to believe him either. He's just the DA.

The issue of "consent" does not appear to be relevant to this case. Nice try though....

Can you explain how a mother who straved her baby to death, and then shipped the dead body in a suitcase to another city only got probation? Did you just land in this country yesterday? Stupid sentences are passed out all the time, really as a matter of course.

Some just write these bad sentences off as "liberal activist judges," or "activist judges writing law from the bench." In this case, the DA blamed the judge (you can read his actual quotes, if you care to believe them), but it seems he is deflecting blame. It appears the ADA botched this case, and the DA is playing CYA for his office. Notice that despite the public outrage, none of the major figures in the case disputed that the girls encounter was described as "forced molestation," and they were "attacked," "raped" and "assualted." No one has disputed this anywhere. Although it appears everyone has an open microphone.

NO. You are assuming that. What is YOUR source for this information?

Ah, no. You should interview your local DA or even a law professor at your local college for a better understanding of how these charges, in many cases are crafted. You should apply the same critical thought process to your own assumptions that you are using on the story itself, rather than just firing off assumptions because they "fit" your scheme.

There is an expression: A little bit of knowledge can be dangerous. And we seem to have a lot of amateur lawyers and prosecutors all of a sudden.

There was no trial, that I know of. If there is something we don't know, then we don't know. Do we? But as John Adams once commented, "facts are stubborn things." And I agree with him. Different facts, will change the case, and my feelings about the case would change as well.

But we don't have different facts, do we? Although everyone has the opportunity to come forward and say, "It's not what you are reporting [in the Daily News]," even the DA could have played CYA by saying, "there are other facts in the case which led to the plea bargain that we can't discuss." But that did not happen, at least as of yet. Did it? Maybe they didn't think to use that excuse yet. Maybe. And believe me, if it is what you are suggesting, I'm sure Simmons lawyer would be screaming into the microphone that his client was "a scapegoat." Getting a client off, especially like Simmons, in a case like this would certainly be a sweet plumb for the fortunes of any criminal lawyer in NYC. I would think. Maybe they just have to think that one up yet. "Yeah, it wasn't Simmon's fault. All these young girls just wanted what they got and he was more than willing to go along." We should not think of Ashley as "innocent," but a "complete punk." Right? Not that anyone wants to be "anti-woman," or anything. Yep. case closed.

 

I'm not really taking sides in this but I thought this was worth pointing out:

Generally speaking, that's a pretty good rule of thumb. This is the NY Daily News, not the Times, afterall.

 

New York seems a bit draconian about public records. I bet that it would be tough for any of us to get court transcripts, but the local media would be proficient at getting them, as they do it all the time. I assume the NY Daily News got them; I really wish they would have published them.

Criminal histories are a different story.* They are supposed to be public record as well, but NY seems to limit their dissemination to the subject of the request (i.e. you can request your own criminal history), and they charge $65 for it. This is not the norm, both in the cost and the limitation.

Personally, while it is very tempting, I really don't want to potentially come under scrutiny by attempting to get Simmons' history (due to the normal limitations and the publicity surrounding the matter). Additionally, the record may not yet have been appended at this point - it can take quite a long time in places that have extremely high volumes like NY.

*Simmons' criminal history would tell us exactly what he was arrested for, what he was charged with, what he pled to, and what his sentence was.