GUILTY GA - Jorelys Rivera, 7, Canton, 2 Dec 2011 - #5

[Magdalyn]

So I guess this doesn't say the minor was Jorelys and it doesn't say it was not Jorelys because it doesn't have to?

I'm asking BTW

I honestly don't know.

From what if read of the grand jury process, the DA's office wants to show the GJ enough evidence/witness interviews, etc that they feel confident they'll get an indictment, but they don't want to 'give away the farm' of what they have at this point.

On the other side of the coin, it seems like it would say 'of the victim' instead of 'minor' if it was an image of Jorelys.

What I want to know is, at what point does the whole two-way street of 'sharing information' thing come into play. After arraignment? Before plea? After plea? What I'm asking is, at what can/does RBs attorneys say "show us what you've got."

 

[Magdalyn]

Also, not to derail the thread, but I have a four year old, and I have no idea how to have this conversation with him. Like, about personal safety.

I grew up in the 80's, and it was all stranger danger, and stranger abductions are rare, so that doesn't seem helpful.

We're taking him to Disney next week, and he's been lost in a crowd once before, and despite talking to him about finding a mommy with kids, he just runs around and screams his little head off. How do I teach him to protect himself? I don't know where to start.

It doesn't help that I'm super overprotective. Like, helicopter-mom grade.

I was the same as you (mine are 10 and 13 now). It's hard to take the (necessary) leap because you're about to tell them there really IS such a thing as monsters ... in human form.

Start here:
http://www.pollyklaas.org/safe/talk-to-strangers.html?gclid=CPnh96r1yq0CFUOQ7Qod1D-SjA

And my friend got this video for her young kids and she thought it was really good.

http://www.thesafeside.com/

 

[duchessofdork]

I honestly don't know.

From what if read of the grand jury process, the DA's office wants to show the GJ enough evidence/witness interviews, etc that they feel confident they'll get an indictment, but they don't want to 'give away the farm' of what they have at this point.

On the other side of the coin, it seems like it would say 'of the victim' instead of 'minor' if it was an image of Jorelys.

What I want to know is, at what point does the whole two-way street of 'sharing information' thing come into play. After arraignment? Before plea? After plea? What I'm asking is, at what can/does RBs attorneys say "show us what you've got."

BBM and Just my opinion:

We've been wondering if Jorelys was his first victim, or if he's molested any other children. I wonder if it's cell phone pictures taken of a previous victim.

 

[katydid23]

I was surprised at the level of detail they offered. I was not, however, bothered by it. I think our society, in sanitizing these things, does itself no favors. Whether we are talking war, or crimes like this one, I think it is better overall if the horrible truth is known and discussed. And while this would arguably result in some desensitization over time, I still believe that this is preferable to ignorance.

We see this, for example, with war. Our entertainment media present it as nothing more than a glorious adventure, strategic splatters of dirt and blood on flawless faces and artfully dishevelled hair, a game where pain and death are set to stirring music, each casualty nothing more than an oportunity for our heros to display their courage and honor. The result is evident in our society. We glorify and sanitize war and by-god we love doing it.

The same can be said for crimes like these. They are scrubbed clean of blood in the news and entertainment. Crimes happen off camera and the horrible reality remains a mystery and almost shameful secret to the public at large. So much so that gangsters are good guys, socipathic cannibals like Hannible Lecter are heros, and the real life victims of crime often feel compelled to hide their victimization in shame.

You can see this at work in this case as well. Simply by look at facebook. Look at the innocent fools defending and offering excuses for this maniac. Who among us, they ask, hasn't made mistakes. They ask this because they do not understand the brutal horror that this child suffered, and they do not understand because in the past no one told them the horrific truth -- it was considered too terrible to discuss, and the result is ignorance.

So yeah, I SALUTE the media for writing this.

Just my opinion though.

Sorry, but i disagree. I do not feel there was any need for the graphic and sick details to be included in that article. It just adds to any sick and twisted fantasies harbored by other potential future perps, imo.

 

[duchessofdork]

I was the same as you (mine are 10 and 13 now). It's hard to take the (necessary) leap because you're about to tell them there really IS such a thing as monsters ... in human form.

Start here:
http://www.pollyklaas.org/safe/talk-to-strangers.html?gclid=CPnh96r1yq0CFUOQ7Qod1D-SjA

And my friend got this video for her young kids and she thought it was really good.

http://www.thesafeside.com/

Dude, now that I've looked at it, I was volunteering one day, and Henry's class has watched the SafeSide video on Internet Safety. That's a GREAT place to start.

 

[Magdalyn]

I don't really have anything meaningful to add at this point, just wanted to chime in that I am still here and while the new details are painful (I think we all lost hope of a quick and painless death), it is good news that they not only have so many charges, but have charges that imply a good bit of evidence.

In our local Canton newspaper/magazine, there was an announcement that Jorelys current fund is making a screen print t-shirt with some of her drawings and a memory message, they said they would put out the final details in next month's issue and I will be glad to pass that link on when it becomes available. They had a pic of one prototype that was pink, with a drawing by Jorelys that showed a happy, stick figure girl under a rainbow...brought back the impact of that rainbow-over-dumpster pic we all saw . When the shirts are available I will get one for each of my children, both to honor her memory and to start conversations about the dangers out there.

I seriously wonder if he will have the opportunity to plead guilty to remove the DP, or if this will end up in trial...Thanks to the poster who mentioned that the lying and cover-up sure hurts his chances at an insanity defense!

Respectfully BBM

I wonder if all is quite because they (by they I mean RBs lawyers) are trying to see if the DAs office is willing to negotiate DP off the table for a guilty plea and a Life sentence w/o parole.

Also, does anyone know much about this process? Is in normal for the judge to not set a date for arraignment when the indictment is handed down?

 

[stillwatersc]

BBM and Just my opinion:

We've been wondering if Jorelys was his first victim, or if he's molested any other children. I wonder if it's cell phone pictures taken of a previous victim.

What is the definition of a minor in Georgia?

 

[duchessofdork]

Respectfully BBM

I wonder if all is quite because they (by they I mean RBs lawyers) are trying to see if the DAs office is willing to negotiate DP off the table for a guilty plea and a Life sentence w/o parole.

Also, does anyone know much about this process? Is in normal for the judge to not set a date for arraignment when the indictment is handed down?

I wonder how much of that has to do with Cannon contesting the constitutionality of the jury:

http://www.ledgernews.com/news/1133-january-11-2012/4423-grand-jury-indicts-brunn-on-13-counts

 

[nursebeeme]

What is the definition of a minor in Georgia?

http://imposteralert.blogspot.com/2007/10/legal-definition-of-child-minor.html

under the age of 18

 

[duchessofdork]

What is the definition of a minor in Georgia?

Under 16, I believe. Looking it up now.

 

[marazul]

Also, not to derail the thread, but I have a four year old, and I have no idea how to have this conversation with him. Like, about personal safety.

I grew up in the 80's, and it was all stranger danger, and stranger abductions are rare, so that doesn't seem helpful.

We're taking him to Disney next week, and he's been lost in a crowd once before, and despite talking to him about finding a mommy with kids, he just runs around and screams his little head off. How do I teach him to protect himself? I don't know where to start.

It doesn't help that I'm super overprotective. Like, helicopter-mom grade.

There are tons of resources online for that, but a couple big lessons that I think are the most important to teach kids EARLY are
1. adults DO NOT ASK KIDS FOR HELP, they ask adults for help. If an adult asks you for help finding a pet, getting directions, anything, it is an ALARM TO RUN AND SCREAM.
2. "bad strangers" are not an old man in a trenchcoat, ladies can be bad, teenagers can be bad, even people you KNOW (teachers, coaches, friends' parents) can be bad, sadly there are mean people who want to hurt kids in the world, and if you get a bad feeling from them, you will never be in trouble for going to a trusted person to tell them.
3. Adults and kids do not have "secrets". If ANY adult says anything to you about "keeping a secret" or "a secret game", tell a parent immediately.

 

[Magdalyn]

What is the definition of a minor in Georgia?

Under the age of 18.

And I think for sex related crimes, that's national.

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/criminal-law/child-*advertiser censored*-law.htm

That being said, if they can just TELL it's a minor by looking at it, I'm guessing the minor in question isn't 17....

 

[abagale]

What is the definition of a minor in Georgia?

MINOR: as taken from http://imposteralert.blogspot.com/2007/10/legal-definition-of-child-minor.html

In the United States as of 1995, minor is legally defined as a person under eighteen. However, not all minors are considered "juveniles" in terms of criminal responsibility.In eleven states, including Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas, a "juvenile" is legally defined as a person under seventeen. In three states, Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina, "juvenile" refers to a person under sixteen. In other states a juvenile is legally defined as a person under eighteen.
In addition, the age of consent for sexual activity is often lower than the age of majority.

See this link for the United States of Health and Human Services. The sight breaks down this important info. by State. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/sr/statelaws/summary.shtml

 

[stillwatersc]

Under the age of 18.

And I think for sex related crimes, that's national.

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/criminal-law/child-*advertiser censored*-law.htm

That being said, if they can just TELL it's a minor by looking at it, I'm guessing the minor in question isn't 17....

But if the victim wasn't Jorelys, they probably located and questioned her/him. I think it most likely was JR, but could have been someone else, even a teenager.

 

[Magdalyn]

But if the victim wasn't Jorelys, they probably located and questioned her/him. I think it most likely was JR, but could have been someone else, even a teenager.

Maybe not. We don't know what 'it' is. It could be an image downloaded from the internet onto his computer or phone. It could be one bootleg child *advertiser censored* movie.

Brunn "knowingly" possessed material "depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct"

It doesn't say he produced it. Just that he possessed it. That may not mean a hill of beans, but just trying to play devil's advocate. :seeya:

I hate to say I 'hope' it is Jorelys, because ... ugh. It would be damning if it is. But we just don't know.

ETA: If the material was some other minor that he knows , and they've interviewed her/him, I think we'd see additional charges on the indictment indicating a second crime victim.

ETA AGAIN! If the images are of another minor, not Jorelys, that child is OBVIOUSLY also a victim of a crime. It just might not be possible to find that minor, if they are still a minor, and seek justice for them.

 

[Magdalyn]

MINOR: as taken from http://imposteralert.blogspot.com/2007/10/legal-definition-of-child-minor.html

In the United States as of 1995, minor is legally defined as a person under eighteen. However, not all minors are considered "juveniles" in terms of criminal responsibility.In eleven states, including Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas, a "juvenile" is legally defined as a person under seventeen. In three states, Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina, "juvenile" refers to a person under sixteen. In other states a juvenile is legally defined as a person under eighteen.
In addition, the age of consent for sexual activity is often lower than the age of majority.

See this link for the United States of Health and Human Services. The sight breaks down this important info. by State. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/sr/statelaws/summary.shtml

So I think as far as being a victim goes, minor implies under 18. I think the juvenile comes into play 'in terms of criminal responsibility' -- a perp.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Sorry, but i disagree. I do not feel there was any need for the graphic and sick details to be included in that article. It just adds to any sick and twisted fantasies harbored by other potential future perps, imo.

Katy, I know it is graphic but no matter what is released or not release it isn't going to heighten the already existing lust of a sadist pedophile. Each one has their own twisted fantasies and they exist no matter what. Some will act upon their fantasies but that isnt because they may read an indictment against another pedophile. Imo, more are looking at child *advertiser censored* to feed their fantasies instead of reading a legal court document.

This indictment will be read aloud in a public courtroom during his arraignment and the media knows this. They did not publish information that will remain private.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Maybe not. We don't know what 'it' is. It could be an image downloaded from the internet onto his computer or phone. It could be one bootleg child *advertiser censored* movie.

Brunn "knowingly" possessed material "depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct"

It doesn't say he produced it. Just that he possessed it. That may not mean a hill of beans, but just trying to play devil's advocate. :seeya:

I hate to say I 'hope' it is Jorelys, because ... ugh. It would be damning if it is. But we just don't know.

ETA: If the material was some other minor that he knows , and they've interviewed her/him, I think we'd see additional charges on the indictment indicating a second crime victim.

That is good thing about our laws. One does not have to produce kiddie *advertiser censored* to be charged with child *advertiser censored*. Just having child *advertiser censored* in his possession is enough.

If he downloaded kiddie *advertiser censored* starting November 27 it seems to me all this was premediated and he targeted Jorelys as his victim to make his perverted fantasies ..........real.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Respectfully BBM

I wonder if all is quite because they (by they I mean RBs lawyers) are trying to see if the DAs office is willing to negotiate DP off the table for a guilty plea and a Life sentence w/o parole.

Also, does anyone know much about this process? Is in normal for the judge to not set a date for arraignment when the indictment is handed down?

No, it isnt unusual. I imagine his arraignment will be before 30-60 days after the indictment was rendered by the GJ. The DA has a certain amount of days before he has to decide if the case is going to be a death penalty case.

There are certain cases though that the DA will refuse a plea even if they want to plea for LWOP and this may be just one of those cases. It is one of the heinous I have heard about recently and all of this brutality happened to a minor child of 7 years old. All 13 charges against him shows this is a DP case, imo.

I have found that pedophile/murderers are the least likely to plea even though the evidence is overwhelming against them. Such as with Richard Allen Davis, Joesph Duncan, John Couey.

They tend to want to deny their evil deeds and never accept accountability even when the evidence shows they were gulity as the sins they committed.

If this does become a DP case it will not come to trial for about 3 years from now. The mass murder case in Brunswick, Georgia happened the first of September 2009 and will be going to trial sometime during the summer or fall of 2012.

IMO

 

[Magdalyn]

No, it isnt unusual. I imagine his arraignment will be before 30-60 days after the indictment was rendered by the GJ. The DA has a certain amount of days before he has to decide if the case is going to be a death penalty case.

There are certain cases though that the DA will refuse a plea even if they want to plea for LWOP and this may be just one of those cases. It is one of the heinous I have heard about recently and all of this brutality happened to a minor child of 7 years old. All 13 charges against him shows this is a DP case, imo.

I have found that pedophile/murderers are the least likely to plea even though the evidence is overwhelming against them. Such as with Richard Allen Davis, Joesph Duncan, John Couey.

They tend to want to deny their evil deeds and never accept accountability even when the evidence shows they were gulity as the sins they committed.

If this does become a DP case it will not come to trial for about 3 years from now. The mass murder case in Brunswick, Georgia happened the first of September 2009 and will be going to trial sometime during the summer or fall of 2012.

IMO

While I know it's the 'ultimate' punishment, in some cases I think the death penalty is too easy an out for the criminal, since we have to be all humane about it. Plus, once they're on death row, aren't they 'protected'? I want this animal in gen pop. For a looooooong time. With a tattoo on his forehead labeling him what he is. Prison justice. :rant:

ETA: And thank you for your informative answer, oceanblueeyes!