GUILTY OH - Steubenville Rape Case, 11 Aug 2012 #2

[fran]

Ok peeps, here's the deal. Here's a post from one of our administrators, JBean:

WS Administrator

Current Guidelines- (plus initials all around at this point):

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Steubenville, Oh High School Football Players Accused of Kidnapping/Rape of a 16 Y/O
The line between fact and fiction is becoming seriously blurred by both sides of this issue.

Please do not rely on blogs for 'fact" check. We can use MSM, the LE page and a couple of the blogs to compare timelines and info and see what shakes out.
I am going to go out on a limb and speak for all of us when I say that no member here supports rape.
But we have to be careful that in a push for justice that posts do not become careless or irresponsible in accusations and information;that can undermine our own credibility.

Please stick to MSM articles. Due to the nature of this topic - some blogs are allowed for discussion points and comparison- but they do not necessarily contain factual information either.

Do not name minors on this board- please use initials.



I'm going to add to this that, although there's names in the MSM, we don't want them here, ie the parents of one of those juveniles mentioned, who's house the incident happened at. IF the parent's name is in the article, please replace it with initials only. At least for posting here on Websleuths.

Whenever there's a sexual assault involved, it gets very sticky to keep privacy of innocent parties. When a juvenile is involved, it takes on a whole new level.

We NEVER mention juvenile's names unless they're the victim. IN this case, the surrounding players involved in the incident, have not been charged and may not be named. :nono:

I realize that some of the players MAY be 18, not sure though, but to err on the side of caution, just don't mention any of those involved. Including from MSM articles. Replace within the article pasted, INITIALS only.

TIA for your cooperation.

fran

 

[i.b.nora]

JH is not a minor AND he willingly testified for the prosecution on the first day of the trial. The interview and article with his father was done AFTER the trial was over and was done by MAINSTREAM media.

 

[Salem]

JH is not a minor AND he willingly testified for the prosecution on the first day of the trial. The interview and article with his father was done AFTER the trial was over and was done by MAINSTREAM media.

Doesn't matter i.b.nora. We are NOT going to name him here. He was a minor at the time.

If LE charges him with a crime, we may (and that is a may/might/maybe - no guarantee) relax this rule. BUT we never name minors unless they are the victim (but not in a sexual assault case) or a perp, named by LE in MSM. This is a hard and steadfast rule at WS and we are sticking to it and expect our posters to stick to it, also.

If you have further questions about this, please pm a moderator.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[believe09]

H said his son and friends never met the girl before that night. He said his son’s group was spending time at his home in between high school graduation and departing for college. H said his home often hosted his friends in a basement that had a separate entranceway because he or his wife were always home to monitor their children and their friends.

“My wife yelled down around midnight that if you’re not staying the night you need to leave,” H said.

H said his son made sure the group leaving had a designated driver but checked on the group after they had carried the girl to the car.

OK, Mom was home. Dad says everyone was supervised, always. The basement has it's own entryway, but that doesnt matter because Dad says everyone was supervised and Mom was home that night. JD vomited in the house, and son cleaned it up according to Dad. Son was responsible enough to make sure there was a designated driver, but at no point thought he should alert his mother to the state JD was in? :waitasec:

Or, Mom saw it for herself and told everyone to clear out because they werent invited. It is hard to tell from the article.

Does this make sense to anyone? Dad should have kept his mouth shut, tbh. Now he has yet again stoked the fire, because I have yet to see how this helps his son's case in the court of public opinion. I for one am even more appalled because Mom was home and she didnt do anything either.

 

[AnaTeresa]

OK, Mom was home. Dad says everyone was supervised, always. The basement has it's own entryway, but that doesnt matter because Dad says everyone was supervised and Mom was home that night. JD vomited in the house, and son cleaned it up according to Dad. Son was responsible enough to make sure there was a designated driver, but at no point thought he should alert his mother to the state JD was in? :waitasec:

Or, Mom saw it for herself and told everyone to clear out because they werent invited. It is hard to tell from the article.

Does this make sense to anyone? Dad should have kept his mouth shut, tbh. Now he has yet again stoked the fire, because I have yet to see how this helps his son's case in the court of public opinion. I for one am even more appalled because Mom was home and she didnt do anything either.

I could sort of see him not notifying Mom. He made sure there was a DD, but he also didn't want to rat them out or get in trouble for them showing up. That's a very typical teenaged kid thing to do, particularly if he thought the only issue was drinking. I don't know if this is true, but I could believe it. Thinking about myself at 17, if I had some friends show up that were drunk, I don't think I would have involved a parent - I would have just made sure there was a DD and sent them on their way. I wouldn't have anticipated sexual assault.

However, if Mom knew the kids were there, then I do think it was a bit odd to just send them on their way, rather than calling the other parents. Even with a DD, you don't sent intoxicated teens out into the night.

I understand why Dad feels compelled to make this statement, but I don't think it was the right course of action. He stands to make things worse for themselves, I think.

 

[PrairieWind]

OK, Mom was home. Dad says everyone was supervised, always. The basement has it's own entryway, but that doesnt matter because Dad says everyone was supervised and Mom was home that night. JD vomited in the house, and son cleaned it up according to Dad. Son was responsible enough to make sure there was a designated driver, but at no point thought he should alert his mother to the state JD was in? :waitasec:

Or, Mom saw it for herself and told everyone to clear out because they werent invited. It is hard to tell from the article.

Does this make sense to anyone? Dad should have kept his mouth shut, tbh. Now he has yet again stoked the fire, because I have yet to see how this helps his son's case in the court of public opinion. I for one am even more appalled because Mom was home and she didnt do anything either.

I actually think it makes sense. By "supervised" I dont think they meant always watching them, in the room. Thats not even possible. They knew where he was, in the baseement and roughly who was coming and going. They didnt have any reason to suspect anything was wrong. The boy made sure they had a sober driver. Should he have checked more on the girl? Probably. But I'm sure he had no idea what had or would happen. Morally could/should he have done more? Maybe so. But there isn't anything illegal about his or the parents' actions. As for the father commenting, lets face it, everyone is demanding information. He is giving it. If he didnt say anything, people would be all over them for covering up or being silent.

 

[i.b.nora]

An article and audio interview with Rachel Dissell regarding among other things the grand jury and who it might call, and what the judge has the option/power of doing with the two guilty youths and the SO designation.

She is the only mainstream writer/journalist who has covered this case from the very beginning who imo is always worth listening to.

http://www.pri.org/stories/politics...ver-more-charges-in-ohio-rape-case-13266.html

Grand jury will convene to consider more charges in Ohio rape case
Published 19 March, 2013 09:00:00 WBUR's Here & Now
Public Radio International

"A grand jury in Ohio will consider additional charged in connection with the rape of a teenage girl, specifically considering whether charges shoud be filed against people who failed to report what happened. Among those who could be called are 16 people who refused to be interviewed about the case and Steubenville's football coach."

 

[i.b.nora]

Special judge appointed to oversee grand jury looking into Steubenville rape case
By Associated Press
on March 21, 2013 at 1:40 PM, updated March 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM

"COLUMBUS, Ohio — The chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court has appointed a special judge to oversee the work of a grand jury investigating possible new charges related to the rape of a 16-year-old girl last summer."

— Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor appointed retired Summit County Judge Patricia Ann Cosgrove to conduct the grand jury, which meets in April.

— Because of an ongoing Steubenville controversy about a cover up of the initial report, Jefferson County Judge Frank Bruzzese had requested that an outside judge be appointed.

 

[i.b.nora]

Apparently 20/20 is doing a story on the Steubenville case on Friday March 21st.

Steubenville Social Media: By the Numbers

"Watch the first interview with one of the convicted teens, interviews with parents of the boys, and hear what the teens who were there that night said about what happened, on “20/20: Way Too Gone: A Night in Steubenville” Friday at 10 ET."

 

[PrairieWind]

Special judge appointed to oversee grand jury looking into Steubenville rape case
By Associated Press
on March 21, 2013 at 1:40 PM, updated March 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM

"COLUMBUS, Ohio — The chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court has appointed a special judge to oversee the work of a grand jury investigating possible new charges related to the rape of a 16-year-old girl last summer."

— Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor appointed retired Summit County Judge Patricia Ann Cosgrove to conduct the grand jury, which meets in April.

— Because of an ongoing Steubenville controversy about a cover up of the initial report, Jefferson County Judge Frank Bruzzese had requested that an outside judge be appointed.

This is good to see. The local district judge recognizes and acknowledges that there is a lack of trust of the local authorities and that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety has asked for an outside judge to oversee the grand jury.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I have a question for the mods.

How is it within WS's victim-friendly rules to claim that JD offered favors that night and was awake enough to participate, when nothing of the sort has been reported either at the trial or in the mainstream media?

Thank you.

 

[believe09]

I snipped this off of the AP story that is linked here:

(The focus of the story is Coach Reno for the most part)

Story Here

 

[i.b.nora]

The Yahoo article is actually (or originally) an Atlantic Wire article and is located here.

The Steubenville Coach Has Joe Paterno Problems
By ALEXANDER ABAD-SANTOS MAR 19, 2013
The Atlantic Wire

But, preceeding that article was another one where the chart was originally posted, a blurb about it:

Who's in Trouble Next in Steubenville?
By ALEXANDER ABAD-SANTOS MAR 18, 2013
The Atlantic Wire

snipped

"So who are investigators looking at for this grand jury hearing? Well, Steubenville is a town of 18,000 people, but a lot of those people are connected by way of the football team, the legal system, and especially local law enforcement. The power players in this town know each other. To get a sense of the inner workings, we've expanded on a comprehensive chart from investigative journalist Joey Ortega, with new connections based on news reports and testimony in last week's trial. This map is not proof of any funny business or wrongdoing — not at all — but it does help re-introduce the bigger picture, and you can click the image below to expand:"

And, the same image as linked here at WS is included in the article.
(By the way, the image does contain the full names of three presumably minors, two of whom testified at the trial, the third of which was not charged with any crime.)

The image was from Joey Ortega (who I am not familiar with) who has some blog called Behind the Yellow Tape. There are at least two, maybe three other similar charts that I have seen floating around at various conspiracy blog sites.

With all that said, it seems to me that the important thing regarding specifically the coach and any other teacher or coach or school employee, are the Ohio State laws as discussed in the "The Steubenville Coach Has Joe Paterno Problems" article.

CODE No person described in division (A)(1)(b) of this section who is acting in an official or professional capacity and knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect based on facts that would cause a reasonable person in a similar position to suspect, that a child under eighteen years of age or a mentally retarded, developmentally disabled, or physically impaired child under twenty-one years of age has suffered or faces a threat of suffering any physical or mental wound, injury, disability, or condition of a nature that reasonably indicates abuse or neglect of the child shall fail to immediately report that knowledge or reasonable cause to suspect to the entity or persons specified in this division.

(Surmised by Atlantic Wire) As head football coach, Saccoccia would appear to fall under one of two qualifications for the requirement to report:

CODE... school teacher; school employee; school authority; person engaged in social work or the practice of professional counseling; ...

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2151.421

I am not familiar with any laws in Ohio which require a citizen to report a crime. Maybe others know?

 

[Salem]

I have a question for the mods.

How is it within WS's victim-friendly rules to claim that JD offered favors that night and was awake enough to participate, when nothing of the sort has been reported either at the trial or in the mainstream media?

Thank you.

Well first of all, Izzy - you should be alerting that post to be sure the mods see.

Second, this is the type of question that is better dealt with through the pm system, instead of on the thread where it disrupts the conversation.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[erik28]

In addition to the family statement that was released, this is a good article as well as a 44 minute (unedited) interview with M H, regarding his son and his family and the role their home played in the Steubenville rape case.

Owner of Steubenville Home Where Photo, Video Was Taken Talks to WKBN

I would really appreciate a forensic interviewer's analysis of this video. I haven't watched the whole thing, and couldn't hear much of what the reporter was saying because the audio is low.

This quote from M.H. really jumped out at me, in response to a question about how he was impacted by the video featuring M.N. and the photograph of M.R. and T.M. carrying a seemingly unconscious Jane Doe, both events which occurred in M.H.'s own basement while he was home:

"It made me sick. I, I couldn't believe it. I, I, I'm still angry... about that. I feel, um, I feel like my privacy was intruded upon by those boys, you know, as far as posting the picture and posting the video... It's a pretty famous basement now, and I don't like that at all. I didn't ask for this. My kid didn't ask for this." (time stamp 31:20 remaining, emphasis mine)

M.H. also claims to have not seen the M.N. video until December, 4 months after the crimes against Jane Doe, even though it was taken in his basement, had been in the possession of law enforcement, and clearly implicated his house on some level as potential evidence of the assaults against Jane Doe.

M.H.'s comments and demeanor in this video remind me (to a lesser extent) of Josh Powell's media interviews, especially while he was still in Utah [see Missing Person Susan Powell on this forum if you are not familiar]. Much doesn't add up between my sense of what is conscionable when looking at that photo and video cold and how M.H. discusses it. At this segment in the video, not one word about Jane Doe. M.H. didn't look at that photo and think, "Is that girl even alive?" He thought, "my privacy was intruded upon." :what: Or at least that's what he says he thought, when he says he saw the photo 4 months after the crime.

 

[rachaellouise]

I would really appreciate a forensic interviewer's analysis of this video. I haven't watched the whole thing, and couldn't hear much of what the reporter was saying because the audio is low.

This quote from M.H. really jumped out at me, in response to a question about how he was impacted by the video featuring M.N. and the photograph of M.R. and T.M. carrying a seemingly unconscious Jane Doe, both events which occurred in M.H.'s own basement while he was home:

"It made me sick. I, I couldn't believe it. I, I, I'm still angry... about that. I feel, um, I feel like my privacy was intruded upon by those boys, you know, as far as posting the picture and posting the video... It's a pretty famous basement now, and I don't like that at all. I didn't ask for this. My kid didn't ask for this." (time stamp 31:20 remaining, emphasis mine)

M.H. also claims to have not seen the M.N. video until December, 4 months after the crimes against Jane Doe, even though it was taken in his basement, had been in the possession of law enforcement, and clearly implicated his house on some level as potential evidence of the assaults against Jane Doe.

M.H.'s comments and demeanor in this video remind me (to a lesser extent) of Josh Powell's media interviews, especially while he was still in Utah [see Missing Person Susan Powell on this forum if you are not familiar]. Much doesn't add up between my sense of what is conscionable when looking at that photo and video cold and how M.H. discusses it. At this segment in the video, not one word about Jane Doe. M.H. didn't look at that photo and think, "Is that girl even alive?" He thought, "my privacy was intruded upon." :what: Or at least that's what he says he thought, when he says he saw the photo 4 months after the crime.

It sounds very "me, me, me"

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Well first of all, Izzy - you should be alerting that post to be sure the mods see.

Second, this is the type of question that is better dealt with through the pm system, instead of on the thread where it disrupts the conversation.

Thanks,

Salem

1. I did.

2. Sorry. Duly noted for the future. :truce::blushing:

 

[Redhead72]

Forgive me for asking a question I'm sure all of you know a lot about. I've not been able to follow this case in-depth for a variety of reasons, but came here the day the verdict was announced as my daughters and her friends, as well as some of my friends who work with survivors, and as rape crisis counselors were talking about it all as well.

One of my daughters and her friend were stating that there had been sentencing in the case, but I read a post here indicating that the sentencing portion was yet to occur? Can someone direct me to an article that references when the sentencing portion will take place? I think it would do a world of good for my DD and her friend to know that they have perhaps heard something that isn't true in regard to sentencing...

Thanks in advance! Again, sorry to bother anyone, I just can't bring myself to wade through some of the mass media's reporting of this trial...

 

[believe09]

Hi Readhead72-the sentencing portion occurred already. Permanent or temporary Sex offender registry status is part of a future hearing, and the length of time these offenders are serving is up to DYS. They can be held until they are 21, but they have to serve the minimums established by the judge.

A few links for you:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/03/steubenville-verdict-guilty/63194/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...enville-football-players-found-guilty-of-rape

 

[Redhead72]

Hi Readhead72-the sentencing portion occurred already. Permanent or temporary Sex offender registry status is part of a future hearing, and the length of time these offenders are serving is up to DYS. They can be held until they are 21, but they have to serve the minimums established by the judge.

A few links for you:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/03/steubenville-verdict-guilty/63194/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...enville-football-players-found-guilty-of-rape

Thank you so much!
I understand more now, and thank you very much for the links. I really wish they had tried these young men as adults... It's not like they were 12 or 13yo. :banghead: