WA - Mackenzie Cowell, 17, Wenatchee, 9 Feb 2010 - #14

[Miss Optimism]

Well in this case WC is right. Their birth months have been posted and he was literally 3 months shy of committing statutory rape when they first started dating.

12 and 17, 15 and and 19? Wrong, period.

I was just trying to explain why JV had never met WC. I get why parents would have a problem with that age difference. I actually did the same thing when I was 17- dated a 22 year old guy and my parents didn't like it either.

 

[Liz]

Well in this case WC is right. Their birth months have been posted and he was literally 3 months shy of committing statutory rape when they first started dating.

12 and 17, 15 and and 19? Wrong, period.

I think you might be confusing JV with VDD? :waitasec:

 

[No More]

Whoa- I was just trying to explain why JV had never met WC. I get why parents would have a problem with that age difference. I actually did the same thing when I was 17- dated a 22 year old guy and my parents didn't like it either.

I am citing WA state law. 12 and 17 is statutory rape for example, and JV was 3-months shy of committing statutory rape when he started dating MC 19 & 15 (with a 45-month difference...48 months would have been rape). I've posted the link to those laws several times before.

A 19-year old dating a 15-year old child doesn't sound like a stand-up mature adult male to me. No wonder WC didn't approve.

The first gut reaction I had when I saw this case on TV was that it was a male who was involved with MC, and inappropriately older than she is. Regardless of who the perp turns out to be, there seems to be a lot of that going on in Wenatchee. Just look at the ones we've talked about... VDD, JV, JL, JF.

 

[James Vic]

New WW article:

http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2010/apr/01/no-letting-up-in-cowell-case-police-pledge-still/

 

[Nancee Drue]

I think you might be confusing JV with VDD? :waitasec:

Yeah, I wondered that, too.

There was never a problem with JV, and years ago there was a problem with the other.

 

[justwonderin]

i find it interesting that customs is involved in this case

 

[No More]

Yeah, I wondered that, too.

There was never a problem with JV, and years ago there was a problem with the other.

Well no I'm not confusing VDD and JV. JV was 3-months shy of committing statutory rape when he started dating MC. According to Melissa, it WAS a problem for WC and I would think that as MC's mother her opinion on that relationship would matter more than anyone's opinion here.

Maybe these issues are not relevant anyway.

 

[del rio]

Well no I'm not confusing VDD and JV. JV was 3-months shy of committing statutory rape when he started dating MC. According to Melissa, it WAS a problem for WC and I would think that as MC's mother her opinion on that relationship would matter more than anyone's opinion here.

Maybe these issues are not relevant anyway.

IMO, I don't think that explains or excuses the fact that WC never even met JV during the nearly 2-years they were dating. It's one thing to argue that WC simply didn't approve of JV due to the age difference. That's understandable. I'm sure RC initially felt the same way. But to never meet, see, or talk to her daughter's boyfriend during their entire 20-month relationship is absolutely bewildering. It reeks of an uninvolved mother.

 

[justiceformackenzie]

I am citing WA state law. 12 and 17 is statutory rape for example, and JV was 3-months shy of committing statutory rape when he started dating MC 19 & 15 (with a 45-month difference...48 months would have been rape). I've posted the link to those laws several times before.

A 19-year old dating a 15-year old child doesn't sound like a stand-up mature adult male to me. No wonder WC didn't approve.

The first gut reaction I had when I saw this case on TV was that it was a male who was involved with MC, and inappropriately older than she is. Regardless of who the perp turns out to be, there seems to be a lot of that going on in Wenatchee. Just look at the ones we've talked about... VDD, JV, JL, JF.

Maybe my math is incorrect, but if MC was almost 18 when she died and they had been dating for 17 months, wouldn't she have been 16 1/2 when they started dating and he would have been 19 1/2? My son is almost 21 and dates a young lady who is almost 18. Her mother is fine with it and I am fine with it. My son spends a lot of time at her house and she spends a lot of time at my house. My son's gf's mom and I communicate regularly and make sure everything is on the up and up and support our kids and help them to make correct choices. I don't think MC's mom did that for her. She should have made the effort to get to know JV if he was that important to MC and not made it so that MC couldn't talk to her about it or even let her meet him. That's sad in my opinion.

 

[del rio]

I am citing WA state law. 12 and 17 is statutory rape for example, and JV was 3-months shy of committing statutory rape when he started dating MC 19 & 15 (with a 45-month difference...48 months would have been rape). I've posted the link to those laws several times before.

A 19-year old dating a 15-year old child doesn't sound like a stand-up mature adult male to me. No wonder WC didn't approve.

The first gut reaction I had when I saw this case on TV was that it was a male who was involved with MC, and inappropriately older than she is. Regardless of who the perp turns out to be, there seems to be a lot of that going on in Wenatchee. Just look at the ones we've talked about... VDD, JV, JL, JF.

I don't know many, if any, "stand-up mature" 19 y.o. males. I know I certainly wasn't at that age.

Also, if they had been dating for less than 2-years on or about February 9, 2010, and they are 45-months apart, and JV was 19 y.o. when they started dating, then doesn't that mean MC was over the age of 16? Or, is my math wrong?

The significance of 16 versus 15 is that, in WA, statutory rape applies only to victims "less than sixteen years old." In other words, a 55 y.o. may engage in SI with a 16 y.o. and not be guilty of statutory rape.


§ 9A.44.079. Rape of a child in the third degree

(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the third degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least forty-eight months older than the victim.

 

[del rio]

Maybe my math is incorrect, but if MC was almost 18 when she died and they had been dating for 17 months, wouldn't she have been 16 1/2 when they started dating and he would have been 19 1/2? My son is almost 21 and dates a young lady who is almost 18. Her mother is fine with it and I am fine with it. My son spends a lot of time at her house and she spends a lot of time at my house. My son's gf's mom and I communicate regularly and make sure everything is on the up and up and support our kids and help them to make correct choices. I don't think MC's mom did that for her. She should have made the effort to get to know JV if he was that important to MC and not made it so that MC couldn't talk to her about it or even let her meet him. That's sad in my opinion.

Well said. You put it much better than I did.

 

[Ozz]

i find it interesting that customs is involved in this case

Equally interesting that immigration is still envolved. If JF is perp, what value would these two agencies provide in this case?

oops! same agency...just one of 'em.

 

[No More]

I don't know many, if any, "stand-up mature" 19 y.o. males. I know I certainly wasn't at that age.

Also, if they had been dating for less than 2-years on or about February 9, 2010, and they are 45-months apart, and JV was 19 y.o. when they started dating, then doesn't that mean MC was over the age of 16? Or, is my math wrong?

The significance of 16 versus 15 is that, in WA, statutory rape applies only to victims "less than sixteen years old." In other words, a 55 y.o. may engage in SI with a 16 y.o. and not be guilty of statutory rape.


§ 9A.44.079. Rape of a child in the third degree

(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the third degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least forty-eight months older than the victim.

You are correct. This is why I said that the relationship started 3-months shy of the law. She was 16 years, 3-months. Legal yes, barely yes.

 

[AutumnRose]

Equally interesting that immigration is still envolved. If JF is perp, what value would these two agencies provide in this case?

oops! same agency...just one of 'em.

Ozz.......if you look up the I.C.E. agency you will find they have varied departments. We discussed their involvement back when it was first reported in the WW that they were involved. It could be just that they have an agent helping in some way that doesn't relate to immigration. However; who knows?
It is interesting. We just don't know...........much. That's why we dig and speculate. I'm speculating that we locals all get together after an arrest has been made and share some cheer, food and notes! No doubt........also a few tears for Mackenzie, her family, her friends, and our community.

 

[del rio]

Ozz.......if you look up the I.C.E. agency you will find they have varied departments. We discussed their involvement back when it was first reported in the WW that they were involved. It could be just that they have an agent helping in some way that doesn't relate to immigration. However; who knows?
It is interesting. We just don't know...........much. That's why we dig and speculate. I'm speculating that we locals all get together after an arrest has been made and share some cheer, food and notes! No doubt........also a few tears for Mackenzie, her family, her friends, and our community.

We ought to have an "Arraignment Party" WHEN the killer(s) are formally charged by all of us showing up in court for the killer(s) arraignment(s). I would skip work for that.

 

[Moonsabove]

"He also said that detectives have not been able to determine if the killer was someone Cowell knew or was a stranger."

Whut?? I thought they said it was someone close to her?

 

[Ozz]

"he also said that detectives have not been able to determine if the killer was someone cowell knew or was a stranger."

whut?? I thought they said it was someone close to her?

wtf?!!?

 

[Nancee Drue]

We ought to have an "Arraignment Party" WHEN the killer(s) are formally charged by all of us showing up in court for the killer(s) arraignment(s). I would skip work for that.

An online arraignment party would be fun.

 

[fhc]

New WW article:

http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2010/apr/01/no-letting-up-in-cowell-case-police-pledge-still/

Did everyone read this?

 

[Miss Optimism]

"He also said that detectives have not been able to determine if the killer was someone Cowell knew or was a stranger."

Whut?? I thought they said it was someone close to her?

I know, that threw me off too. I thought they specifically said that it wasn't a kidnapping? Wouldn't a stranger jumping in your car or grabbing you be considered kidnapping? Also, when they announced that she wasn't sexually assaulted that told me it wasn't a stranger. The anger and violence that was done to her couldn't have been random. It had to have been someone she knew.