Found Safe TN - SLP, 14, Madisonville, Monroe County, 13 Jan 2019 #3 *ARRESTS*

[JudgeJoe]

So with him already being a convicted felon, is his DNA already in the database, or would DNA mandatory collection laws for felons have been implemented after the dates of his prior offenses?

—-

IF his DNA was not in any databases prior to this, maybe there’s a chance his DNA will now get a hit in another rape case(s). However it is discouraging and must be noted that thousands of rape kits remain untested.

Reference from Hania’s case, this is N.C. alone:

“The fact that the 2016 rape kit had been tested at all is remarkable, critics say. Between 14,000 to 15,000 other rape kits in North Carolina are waiting their turn in a massive backlog that's been piling up for years, leaving potential repeat offenders like Aguilar's alleged killer free to find their next target.

"Every single sexual assault kit that is untested represents a human being who went through an awful trauma, and they as a human being deserve to have their case investigated fully," Stein said.”

Backlog of untested rape kits is 'a public safety issue,' may let offenders slip away

Wow- really a worthwhile read!

 

[floridagrrl]

Trying to get back into my 14 year old brain
If this was happening to me but I was a scared child to speak with words to someone, say like my mother, would I email her the video(s)? So she had to come to me to help me?
Possibly yes, I could see this. MOO

 

[gitana1]

I truly hope that we aren't unpleasantly surprised when all the facts come out in this case.

I'm already unpleasantly surprised. A child was raped by her parent who choked up on tv and professed his love for her and grief. What do you mean?

 

[Beagle]

Trying to get back into my 14 year old brain
If this was happening to me but I was a scared child to speak with words to someone, say like my mother, would I email her the video(s)? So she had to come to me to help me?
Possibly yes, I could see this. MOO

The difficulty we have at the moment is that we don't know who she sent the video to or why.

My thoughts are: she wanted to ensure the proof was not lost, either by accidental deletion, or lose of her phone.

She has been unable to talk directly about the rape and was reaching out for help.

Other charges may relate to who took her over state lines due to her age rather than forced but still falls under abduction.

Also in relation to the people who offered her sanctuary.

Other possibilities I see are: that he took her himself then made the claim she was missing.

RE the video I have pondered how she could have managed that (without his knowing) and maybe if it was a regular thing it was always at the same time in the same place.

There are still so many possibilities, and I guess we will just have to wait to find out.

I am not aware of US state laws so please correct if I am wrong.

 

[gitana1]

But, the script still states, "...a video of Pruitt having sex with the teen..."
The phrase "having sex with" downplays HIS responsibility and implies participation on her part.

How about this: "Investigators Allege That Photos and Videos Found On The Missing Teen's Phone Documented The Rape"

And (in the Script): "While going through those records, investigators discovered that several photos and a video of Pruitt [committing the alleged crime against] the teen had been taken and sent to another individual."

A grown man can NOT 'have sex' with a 14 year old!
A 14 year old can NOT 'have sex' with a grown man!!
A "dad" can NOT 'have sex' with his child!!
Why is that so hard for them to understand?

Bravo!!

 

[JudgeJoe]

That's strange and annoying. The article refers to it as a "consensual sex" and then in the next paragraph says that she can't consent. WTF?

So a 16 year old can consent two years before the age of consent? You’re right. Annoying!

 

[swanniee11]

I am catching up however I had read that there may be more arrests, has that happened? I didn't find anything.

I have to say, the morning she went missing he had to have been CHITTING bricks, seeing the sheets gone. IMO

 

[gitana1]

Tennessee Age of Consent & Statutory Rape Laws

So if I’m reading this correctly, he can be charged with statuatory rape and rape by an authority figure?
Can he be charged w/incest if SP is not his biological daughter?

Another case . . . Jonesborough, Tenn. man charged in Sullivan County statutory rape case

Why are people assuming this is a statutory rape case? She was a child being molested by her father. Nothing to indicate she was a teen willfully engaging in a sexual "relationship" with her "father".

In any event, siblings, stepparents and adoptive parents can be charged with incest.

 

[gitana1]

So a 16 year old can consent two years before the age of consent? You’re right. Annoying!

It seems they're using the word "consent" both colloquially and legally. So colloquially, if a minor isn't forced to participate in a sexual act and says they are willing to do so, (even though they lack the ccapacity to make such a decision) the word "consensual" can apply in a dictionary sense.

But as she is a minor (without the ability to always make mature decisions and to resist pressure or manipulation by an adult), she lacks the legal capacity to consent.

It's confusing.

But in the case he was arrested for rape. Not statutory rape.

 

[GoneGoldfishin']

Who said the laws were arbitrary or that I believed them to be. I explicitly stated that it is rape. I have no idea where you get a different meaning.

You stated in an earlier post that the video may show there was no force involved, and then further stated "It is quite possible that the situation is a bit different then you believe it to be." Which IMO implied something that I consider to be extremely victim unfriendly, and I hope I am wrong about what you were suggesting. In your subsequent post which I replied to, you stated: "Well you could have a willing participant that legally cannot consent." This is absolutely false, and is at the very crux of the matter of the law. This is what I mean by your not having an understanding. It is not rape because the law says so; it is rape because a child is not ABLE to be a willing participant. There is no circumstance or scenario in which an adult violating a child in this way could ever be explained or understood, whether a law is in place or not. I understand that you explicitly stated this was rape, but your other words, to me, speak of a grey area. Can you not see how the statements you made in both of those posts make it seem that you might believe the victim had any kind of choice in the matter? Again, take the second example that you use, of a 16 and 26 year old. The laws are not in place to thwart some would-be star crossed romance. The laws, which really are just an outline of crime and punishment, are there to ensure that idiots that pursue sexual relationships with children are imprisoned and away from the rest of decent society who actually have the morals and higher thought processes to realize that a child's brain and body are still developing, and therefore our job is to protect them from physical, emotional, and psychological harm instead of exploiting them for some base carnal drive.




MOO.

 

[JudgeJoe]

I asked my state trooper friend his opinion. He said in arrest warrants they are supposed to use "unbiased" or accusatory language when describing the act that resulted in the charge. For example it might describe video or witness accounts of a person holding a gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger and causing their death, and thus they are charged with murder. We all know that's murder, but in the arrest warrant they can't say he put the gun to their head and murdered them. So the police described the act that resulted in the rape charge in the arrest warrant.

He went on to say that he too finds it disgusting that media is using "the having sex with" language because there is a charge of rape. He hates having to use that type of language in these kind of warrants and believe the media should be referring to it as what RP was charged with, alleged rape.

I hope that made sense. He explained it much better than I.

That is really helpful to understanding this. But there must be a better way...

 

[Jethro4WS]

Why are people assuming this is a statutory rape case? She was a child being molested by her father. Nothing to indicate she was a teen willfully engaging in a sexual "relationship" with her "father".

In any event, siblings, stepparents and adoptive parents can be charged with incest.

The media hasn't reported what class of rape under Tennessee law he has been charged with. I don't think we will know until Tuesday when his first appearance/arraignment is.

The statute of the classes starts here.
Tennessee Code Title 39. Criminal Offenses § 39-13-501 | FindLaw

 

[flute4peace]

I thought “statutory” meant that one party was under the age of consent, no matter if both “wanted to” or not. Is that not the correct definition?

 

[gitana1]

The media hasn't reported what class of rape under Tennessee law he has been charged with. I don't think we will know until Tuesday when his first appearance/arraignment is.

The statute of the classes starts here.
Tennessee Code Title 39. Criminal Offenses § 39-13-501 | FindLaw

If he was charged with statutory rape the media would've said so. The sheriff specifically said he was charged with RAPE and his daughter was the victim.

That's definitive and clear to me.

Why would anyone assume this poor little 14 year old girl who loved her family and animals and God and posted sweet photos of herself with flowers in her hair was willing for her own father to abuse her in this way?

Not fighting or being beat up doesn't make it "consensual" and doesn't mean she was a willing participant. It also doesn't mean force wasn't used. It doesn't have to be violent or involve a fight to include force and be rape.

The language being used in this case was definitive and stark. I believe that had there been any way at all that the evidence could demonstrate statutory rape of some sort that would've been stated.

 

[gitana1]

I thought “statutory” meant that one party was under the age of consent, no matter if both “wanted to” or not. Is that not the correct definition?

Pretty much. Except if the underage person was forced or didn't say they were willing to allow the adult to do something sexual to them, it would be a different and more serious charge.

 

[flute4peace]

My now ex-husband raped his 13 yr old adopted daughter (my daughter) and he was charged with (and convicted of) rape with force/threat of force. When I read that in his indictment, I freaked out hoping LE hadn't made a mistake that could set him free, since what I knew of the circumstances didn't include force. They said since he's her dad and she's under the age of consent it's automatically considered force/threat of force. That wasn't in TN though. Wording matters... phoey on TN if this is a state law kind of thing.

Oh my word, I can’t imagine the horror of this!!!!

 

[flute4peace]

Pretty much. Except if the underage person was forced or didn't say they were willing to allow the adult to do something sexual to them, it would be a different and more serious charge.

Thank you, Gitana!

 

[GoBuckeyes]

<modsnipped>

I tried to go back and delete my last post on the previous thread because I replied to the wrong post, but there it is.

She may have been the only one targeted for abuse (unfortunately that happens). The other kids may have heard something, but it might have been explained away. All the way around, this is a very dysfunctional family, to put it mildly.

But there must have been some strong people in her life to give her the strength to get out. It’s amazing to me how far she went to get out of that bad home situation. Remember earlier, there was nothing found in 2,000 pages of cell phone records to connect her to anyone. So that will be interesting to understand.

Have they searched server records from the internet provider at their previous location in GA? Also, SP's former school's server(s)?

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Yup. I wonder who that victim(s) was.

I'm so behind. Anyone know where the above referenced "I'm a nobody" came from; I missed it. TIA

 

[Jethro4WS]

If he was charged with statutory rape the media would've said so. The sheriff specifically said he was charged with RAPE and his daughter was the victim.

That's definitive and clear to me.

Why would anyone assume this poor little 14 year old girl who loved her family and animals and God and posted sweet photos of herself with flowers in her hair was willing for her own father to abuse her in this way?

Not fighting or being beat up doesn't make it "consensual" and doesn't mean she was a willing participant.

The language being used in this case was definitive and stark. I believe that had there been any way at all that the evidence could demonstrate statutory rape of some sort that would've been stated.

Not saying anything of the sort - not even arguing it is the case. Just saying that we don't know what class he is charged with. We could guess and assume to our hearts content but all I am saying is we don't know for certain until Tuesday. There could be be more charges or more counts of rape filed and we don't know that either.

And the BBM. Never said it was and I have consistently said it is clearly rape and never said otherwise and made no mention of "not fighting" or "not being beat up" or any such thing since neither is required for a rape to occur and being a willing participant does not mean it isn't rape nor does it mitigate it in any way. I am quite consistent on this.