As you may remember from yesterday, 17-year-old Savannah Dietrich was sexually assaulted when she passed out at a party by two teen age boys, who also took and circulated pictures of the event. It's uncertain whether she was plied with liquor until she was incapacitated or whether something was added to her drink.
Angry at what she considered a wrist slap plea bargain and recommended sentence on her assailants put together by the DA, she resorted to her twitter account to reveal her attacker's names, thus violating the judge's court order not to discuss the details of the case...after which the attorneys for the two boys involved filed a motion to have her held in contempt, which holds a maximum penalty of a $500 fine and up to 180 days in jail.
Well, the verdict of sorts is in. Thanks to the widespread publicity this received, the lawyers for Samantha Dietrich's attackers decided to withdraw the motion:
David Mejia, an attorney for one of the teens, said given that the story has gone global because of a piece Saturday in The Courier-Journal, there was no reason to continue the contempt motion.
“What could contempt do now?” Mejia said in an interview, adding that the boys’ names have already been circulated far beyond the original tweet. “Seems like a rather useless exercise doesn’t it?”
Emily Farrar-Crockett, deputy division chief of the public defender's juvenile division and one of Dietrich's attorneys, said on Monday that “Savannah greatly appreciates the overwhelming support she has received from all over the world” since the newspaper story was published.
“We are encouraged by the private defense attorney’s belated recognition that their action was inappropriate and only served to make worse what this child victim has already endured,” she said.{...}
Mejia was obviously angry with Dietrich’s actions, saying his client’s “privacy has been trampled. He’s accused of things he didn’t do. Anybody who looks at (the postings online) believes things about this kid that are false, but there is nothing I can do about that.”
Mejia said he could not talk about the facts of the case, as he is bound by juvenile confidentiality.
“I can’t stop this teen, and she put it out there,” he said. “She put everybody’s names out there. ... We went to court hoping she would come to her senses” after the tweets, adding the laws of confidentiality in juvenile court were written to protect the victim but “apparently she didn’t want to be protected.”
I find this attorney's remarks puzzling. Neither teen denied committing the assault( and remember, Samantha was also under the age of consent at the time)photographing the event or circulating the pictures. after all, Mr. Mejia had already engineered a plea bargain that involved his clients pleading guilty to the charges, first-degree sexual abuse, a felony, and misdemeanor voyeurism, whatever that may be.
I don't see what Samantha Dietrich was accusing his client of that he didn't admit doing.
I also have the feeling that the judge in the case let the attorneys know in chambers that their motion was not exactly looked on favorably.After all, if we're talking about a privacy violation, Samantha Dietrich, who had photos of herself being sexually assaulted circulated to who knows how many people suffered to a far greater degree.
Sentencing will take place in about a month.
-selah-
It is common that innocent people plea bargin. I assume these two boys are guilty but in fact we don't know simply because the justice system has a record of putting innocent people in jail and if you don't accept the plea they go for the juggler. SO, the bargin these two boys accepted was to plead guilty to satisfy the court and the victim and in turn they got a specific punishment INCLUDING that their names would not be released. The victim violated the agreement. Are ther two boys "guilty"? We don't know because everything the "victim" said is secret! Did you get that? Everything the "victim" said was SECRET. Would it be appropriate if now the two defendents told us all the secrets not released by the "victim". Was she a victim or a participant? Was there more then alcohol involved? Were they all lovers before and maybe even after and this is a case of revenge by the "victim"? These things absolutely happen. Over 50% of so-called rapes are false claims. Most of these don't make it to court but some do. So if the "victim" can release some of the "facts" maybe ALL of the facts should come out.
ReplyDeleteYou're an idiot.
ReplyDelete50% of rapes are 'false claims'?
You seem to forget that this girl was underage,and that there was diminished capacity involved because she was passed out. The pictures the two rapists took proved that's what happened. So the guys were G-U-I-L-T-Y no matter what.And she was therefore the VICTIM of a crime.
Are you also suggesting that she willingly allowed them to take pictures of what was happening to her and said 'sure guys, pass 'em around to all your friends'?
What more likely happened is that the DA simply wanted to get this off his case list and made an easy and quick deal.
And it was the boys attorneys who withdrew the contempt motion, remember?
if you don't accept the plea they go for the juggler
ReplyDeleteI don't know if that's a typo or not, but it's hilarious.
In your previous post on this topic you asked for "your thoughts?" Actually I have plenty, however, not sure how to articulate them. I only hope and pray the boys are really the monsters they are being made out to be and the girl is really the angel she is being made out to be. That's really all I'm able to write or type about this right now.
ReplyDeleteRape apologist. Not only is he an idiot, he's a lying idiot. He comes from a group of Internet men right activist -MRA, who blame women for all their problems. They go as far as saying 11 year olds in tight clothing are asking to be raped.
ReplyDelete