NE - Richard Thompson for sex abuse of 12yo girl, Sidney, 2005

[dark_shadows]

On Fox News,a replay of Bill with the procecutor will be on on 10 minutes.

 

[mssheila]

Holy Cow Bill O'Reilly is SCREAMING at this former prosecutor who is trying to defend the judge. The former prosecutor didn't get a word in edgewise. They were arguing about the amount of times the criminal attacked the girl. The sworn affadavit says he did it 5 times. The prosecutor argues that it was "only" 2 times. O'Reilly freaks, screams at the guy that this is the OFFENDERS CONFESSION... The prosecutor says 'No it's not... ' O'Reilly screams back and reads more of the affidavit. That's about all the entire segment comprised. The man didn't even get to defend the judge... Go Bill :croc:
ETA: Dark Shadows- that was a replay?

 

[dark_shadows]

Hello Mssheila,

Yes that was a replay and I watched it again.I knew Bulldog Bill would have a field day with that. I am glad that you were able to watch it Mssheila.

 

[mssheila]

Hello Mssheila,

Yes that was a replay and I watched it again.I knew Bulldog Bill would have a field day with that. I am glad that you were able to watch it Mssheila.

I rarely watch OReilly... he's not really my taste, but on occassion I do catch his show. I've NEVER seen him scream at someone like that. His face was all red and puffy!

 

[13th Juror]

Holy Cow Bill O'Reilly is SCREAMING at this former prosecutor who is trying to defend the judge. The former prosecutor didn't get a word in edgewise.

They were arguing about the amount of times the criminal attacked the girl. The sworn affadavit says he did it 5 times. The prosecutor argues that it was "only" 2 times. O'Reilly freaks, screams at the guy that this is the OFFENDERS CONFESSION... The prosecutor says 'No it's not... ' O'Reilly screams back and reads more of the affidavit.

That's about all the entire segment comprised. The man didn't even get to defend the judge... Go Bill :croc:

I'm deeply gratified that we have such staunch defenders & advocates for children - ie; Bill O'Reilly. Folks that advocate for laws with 'more teeth' enacted to protect them - and laws enacted to more severely penalize the rabid monsters that prey upon our most vulnerable children. Huge kudos to all of them!

That said - I still want to hear all sides of a story/issue when someone, like O'Reilly, invites a guest to discuss the issues on his program. I may agree with Bill's position - but that doesn't mean I don't want to hear 'the other side'.

Unfortunately, Bill's know-it-all attitude and rude interruptive behavior is a real turn-off to me. I rarely watch O'Reilly anymore as I simply cannot condone his "cut 'em off' rudeness to his "invited" guests & his self engrandisement.

Besides - "The Factor" initially airs at 8 PM here - normally during our dinner hour. We prefer to engage in family dinnertime conversation .. minus Bill O'Reilly. His show is just not condusive to enjoying a meal with proper digestion following said meal. O'Reilly comes on again at 11 PM - but quite honestly, we much prefer to watch our local news stations & Nightline. 'The Factor' airs again at 4 AM - when we are normally fast asleep.

OK - I missed this segment when Bill sparred with the prosecutor .. so, obviously I cannot speak with any authority or first hand knowledge about it. So I need to ask ... Was this the same prosecutor in this case that did not ask the judge for prison time for this 5'1" child molestor/rapist?

Or was this simply 'another uninvolved prosecutor' from the same jurisdiction attempting to put forth his own opinion or perhaps, Judge Cevaca's reasoning for her unpopular, unconventional & incompetant ruling?

IMO - If the guest prosecutor didn't have an opportunity to speak, state facts or even to complete his thought on this issue - then it was simply a "set-up" for O'Reilly to rant & rave on the injustice of it all.

From what I can gather on this thread .. O'Reilly indulged himself and did not allow a full n' fair exchange to take place 'for the sake and enlightenment of his audience'. To me - that's a shame!

Personally - I still want to hear both sides & all the pertinent facts .. fair & balanced - so we can decide for ourselves how we feel.

JMHO ...

13th Juror

 

[dark_shadows]

The former prosecutor is a friend of the judge and did speak.He gave misinformation and was called on it.That was stated on the posts.
I cannot find the transcripts yet,but when I do it will be posted.

Cecava said at the sentencing hearing that she did not believe the 5-foot, 1-inch Thompson could survive in prison.
He could have been sentenced to 10 years behind bars.
A transcript of the sentencing hearing shows that Cecava considered a number of issues when determining Thompson's sentence, not only his height.

"So I'm sitting here thinking this guy has earned his way to prison but then I look at you and I look at your physical size," Cecava is quoted as saying in the transcript. "I look at your basic ability to cope with people and, quite frankly, I shake to think what might happen to you in prison because I don't think you'll do well in prison."



"I truly hope that my bet on you being OK out in society isn't misplaced," Cecava said at the sentencing hearing. "It's very hard to keep you in society when I know the risk is another child getting hurt."
Lincoln attorney Bernie Glaser, who said he's been Cecava's friend and colleague for 33 years, said her ruling has been misunderstood. The prosecutor didn't ask for prison time, Glaser noted, and the judge took other factors into account when deciding that prison wasn't right for Thompson including his mental capabilities and information contained in a pre-sentence report that is not public.

"We need more judges like her," Glaser said. "I think they should be proud they have a judge like her."

 

[13th Juror]

The former prosecutor is a friend of the judge and did speak. He gave misinformation and was called on it. That was stated on the posts.

I cannot find the transcripts yet, but when I do it will be posted.

Meanwhile, here is an article

<<snipped>>

Thank you for your response, dark shadows. Much appreciated.

As I stated in my post - I did not see the segment. I read on this thread that the invited guest prosecutor didn't get a word in edgewise (or words to that effect).

I totally agree with the position that this slimy little monster should have received prison time - at the very least .. 10 years! I stated my opinion on the miscarriage of justice in this case earlier in the thread.

I absolutely do not accept as valid sound reasoning, Judge Cevaca's decision not to sentence the perp to prison. And then - "only 4 months of wearing a monitoring device"??? IMO - that's utterly ridiculous! :furious:

Dark_shadows, I wasn't aware that 'The Factor' had their transcripts posted online. If you do locate them, I would love to read the interaction that took place.

The main point of my post was simply that I want to hear both sides of issues/arguments.

Since I didn't view the program - it wasn't clear to me (by the posts here) if the guest prosecutor was actually defending the judge, attempting to explain the facts and Cevaca's reasoning or to verbalize his own opinion on the matter. My take was that he was not given an opportunity to adequately respond to O'Reilly's screaming rant.

I appreciate your response.


13th Juror

 

[christine2448]

Here is a link to the video w/O'Reilly going off on this guy (I couldn't hear it, at work, could only see, so I think it's the right one...let me know if it's not and I'll edit post and remove)


http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/03.html#a8565

 

[dark_shadows]

Thank you for your response, dark shadows. Much appreciated.

As I stated in my post - I did not see the segment. I read on this thread that the invited guest prosecutor didn't get a word in edgewise (or words to that effect).

I totally agree with the position that this slimy little monster should have received prison time - at the very least .. 10 years! I stated my opinion on the miscarriage of justice in this case earlier in the thread.

I absolutely do not accept as valid sound reasoning, Judge Cevaca's decision not to sentence the perp to prison. And then - "only 4 months of wearing a monitoring device"??? IMO - that's utterly ridiculous! :furious:

Dark_shadows, I wasn't aware that 'The Factor' had their transcripts posted online. If you do locate them, I would love to read the interaction that took place.

The main point of my post was simply that I want to hear both sides of issues/arguments.

Since I didn't view the program - it wasn't clear to me (by the posts here) if the guest prosecutor was actually defending the judge, attempting to explain the facts and Cevaca's reasoning or to verbalize his own opinion on the matter. My take was that he was not given an opportunity to adequately respond to O'Reilly's screaming rant.

I appreciate your response.


13th Juror

I will be more than happy to post the transcripts for you when I find them.I found the article that I posted for you but that was all I could find.The judge is not thinking of the child hurt by this little monster.Nor is she thinking of future victims.I really want you to hear boths sides like you asked.I just got home from work and I have to stay late again tonight.I will keep checking for you though.
13th Juror,I thank-you so much for the post.
Respectfully,
dark_shadows

 

[GlitchWizard]

I went to Orlando this weekend with my daughter and we visited the Ripley's Believe it or Not museum. I was reminded of this thread when I saw the replica of a little person who had been kept imprisoned in a Canary Cage for the length of his term because he was so tiny.

 

[sherri79]

update
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289648,00.html
OMAHA, Neb. &#8212; A judge had valid reasons for sentencing a 5-foot-1 sex offender to probation, even though she cited the offender's height as part of her rationale, the Nebraska Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
An examination by a clinical psychologist and the results of a test used to determine the risk that Richard W. Thompson would reoffend both indicated that Thompson, 52, is neither a pedophile nor a sexual predator, the court said.
District Judge Kristine Cecava of Cheyenne County sentenced Thompson last year to 10 years of probation for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl.
=========
more @ link.

 

[NewMom2003]

This is outrageous :furious:

 

[MagicRose99]

update
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289648,00.html
OMAHA, Neb. &#8212; A judge had valid reasons for sentencing a 5-foot-1 sex offender to probation, even though she cited the offender's height as part of her rationale, the Nebraska Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
An examination by a clinical psychologist and the results of a test used to determine the risk that Richard W. Thompson would reoffend both indicated that Thompson, 52, is neither a pedophile nor a sexual predator, the court said.
District Judge Kristine Cecava of Cheyenne County sentenced Thompson last year to 10 years of probation for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl.
=========
more @ link.

HUH?!? If he "sexually assault<ed> a 13-year-old girl" what is he if he ISN'T a pedophile and/or sexual predator?!?! THIS makes no sense whatsoever... both the judge and this "psychologist" need to be tarred and feathered and thrown in a fire pit...

 

[Indy Gal]

wtf!!!

 

[CaliKid]

Solitary confinement. Or whatever type custody they used for Paris Hilton. If it's good enough for her...

 

[sherri79]

HUH?!? If he "sexually assault<ed> a 13-year-old girl" what is he if he ISN'T a pedophile and/or sexual predator?!?! THIS makes no sense whatsoever... both the judge and this "psychologist" need to be tarred and feathered and thrown in a fire pit...

from what i read in a post above that quoted the judge i got this. he is not a predator because he picked a kid he had access to and didnt activly go out looking for a kid. i'm sorry but to me its alomst worse. this means he knew the child and violated not only her body but her trust.

 

[southcitymom]

HUH?!? If he "sexually assault<ed> a 13-year-old girl" what is he if he ISN'T a pedophile and/or sexual predator?!?! THIS makes no sense whatsoever... both the judge and this "psychologist" need to be tarred and feathered and thrown in a fire pit...

We've discussed this on other threads before - not all people who commit sexual assault on children are pedophiles. LE classifies child sexual offenders in two different categories: Pedophile (ie - people with a real honest to God prediliction towards sex with children) or situational offenders (people whose primary sexual orienation is not towards children but who take advantge of a child in a given situation - proximity, poor boundaries and drug/alcohol are often involved with situational offenders).

What is surprising to me is that - according to LE statistics - chlidren are more likely to be sexually assualted by a situational molester than a pedophile.

Additionally, many situational molesters are not predators while most pedophiles are.

 

[blaize]

This guy deserves incarceration. I can understand why most people find the situation totally crazy because his height shouldn't be an issue.

My concern is that since he is considered a situational offender how are they going to protect the girl he molested from him? How are they going to ensure that he stays away from her, that she doesn't have to see him on the other side of the street or outside the store etc?

His probation isn't even a slap on knuckles for him but considering that the prosecutor didn't ask for jail time I'm not sure what else the judge could've done.

 

[Jean]

Well, are there any 5'1" women in prison? There are a lot of big women in prison that could do some harm to them. I can't believe not sending this man to prison because he is 5'1", and considered too short. What a message this sends to all of the short men who are perverts.

 

[southcitymom]

It doesn't sound like the Judge's sentence was based on the man's height - though I agree that it is confusing and misleading that she would bring it up during sentencing.

Ultimately, it sounds like the sentence was based on numerous case factors and psychological examination.

Maybe she was trying to cut him down by mentioning the height thing...or scare him about what might happen if he breaks probation....who knows? As we all know, height shouldn't have anything to so with sentencing. And in this case, I don't think that it did.