why i think i should've gone to law school

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

has anyone else been following this?

http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/04/35/moxley-exclusive.php

I have been via www.crabwalk.com. it's just unbelievable.

― Ask For Samantha (thatgirl), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Ah yes, Haidl. There's a flaming pit of hell for him and his dad both.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:24 (twenty-one years ago)

The incident's disgusting, the voyeuristic bent of the article is equally so -

resounding dud.

― x Jeremy (Atila the Honeybun), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:25 (twenty-one years ago)

That's disgraceful, and I afree with Jeremy, the article itself is horrible. As for the defence Attorney, it's certainly not a new defence to try and blame the victim, but to see it done in such a hateful manner makes it even worse...

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:27 (twenty-one years ago)

oh jesus christ.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:30 (twenty-one years ago)

at one point the article refers to one of the kids as being "well-endowed"¡
like we needed to fucking know that¡

― dyson (dyson), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Sick. Don't read the whole article, it's horrible.

― Always Winter Never Almanac (Autumn Almanac), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Christ. Just when you think Man can't sink any lower, you're proven wrong.

"The boys had every reason to believe she consented: she orchestrated it."

This is said by a lawyer? May all these lawyers have nightmares!

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I do think it's important to understand what awful shit the girl went through to make this defense strategy seem even more reprehensible than it already is, though.

― Gear! (Gear!), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:32 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.spr.org/

― 24 hours with the King of Snake. (SNAKE!) (ex machina), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Don't read the whole article, it's horrible.

Gotta agree. Carries the Freedom of Info Act way too far. At least, the reporter had sense not to publish the girl's name, for fuck's sake.

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:34 (twenty-one years ago)

ehh... I have a hard time believing that

Once on the pool table, Doe is again visibly unconscious. Her legs are spread, and Haidl zooms in for a close-up of Doe’s genitals. He sticks his finger in and out of her vagina; she has no reaction. Wearing a red cap backwards, Spann mugs for the camera. Doe’s face is shown, her eyes shut. She is motionless. Haidl returns for more shots of Doe’s vagina. One of the defendants says, "Let me take your spot" and someone replies, "No. No. Fuck that! Fuck that!"

is in any way justified in this article.

― x Jeremy (Atila the Honeybun), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I do see what the author was going for, though it is extreme.

― Gear! (Gear!), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:36 (twenty-one years ago)

what sort of newspaper is this? the author and editor should be fired pronto.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I was apalled by the article as well - it reads like some kind of sick detailled rape porn, WTF kind of a paper is this OC Weekly? They should fire the bastard who wrote it.

And as for that defense lawyer... that he can get away with calling her a "slut" IN THE TRIAL and a "fucking whore" DURING it is just fucking WRONG. WRONNNNG.

― Trayce (trayce), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:37 (twenty-one years ago)

unbelievably wrong and so sickening, god.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:38 (twenty-one years ago)

if the writer's intention was to highlight how vile and misplaced cavallo's defences were (with the graphic detail) then it's *partly* justified. have my doubts that those were his intentions though.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:39 (twenty-one years ago)

The OC Weekly is the local alt weekly, a la the Village Voice or the OC Weekly (last I checked they're all under the same umbrella).

I should note that you are looking at a slice of OC hell like none other in this article. I'm not here to defend Moxley but I am not surprised either.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Why isn't the prosecution objecting to the names?

― 24 hours with the King of Snake. (SNAKE!) (ex machina), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:39 (twenty-one years ago)

the Village Voice or the OC Weekly

Heh. The LA Weekly, excuse me.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:40 (twenty-one years ago)

The incident's disgusting, the voyeuristic bent of the article is equally so

No kidding. R. Scott Moxley writes like a faux liberal fratboy. At least in this article anyway.

― martin m. (mushrush), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:41 (twenty-one years ago)

(of course, i don't think anyone needs to know such graphic details to realise that cavallo's defences are vile, so yes, the writer is probably disgraceful too)

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:43 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know how those lawyers can sleep at night.

― Gear! (Gear!), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Jesus, how the fuck can a lawyer get away with saying that kind of shit in court? And why on earth would they attempt such an insanely unbelievable defense anyway?

― ferg (Ferg), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Considering that this IS a local paper, how much worse is this girl going to feel seeing this intensely traumatic experience in such gruesome detail in the paper, knowing her teachers/mates/neighbours have prolly read it?

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, is the title of that article like, a pun? Ew.

― ferg (Ferg), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:49 (twenty-one years ago)

i thought there were laws protecting a rape accuser from being tarnished in court like this.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh my god... I really wish I hadn't read that.

― Kim (Kim), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd love to see just a small bit of the bag of mail the dumb fuck who wrote that is invariably gonna get.

― martin m. (mushrush), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I did too, I'm a little surprised that the judge let the defense fly. (xpost)

― x Jeremy (Atila the Honeybun), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow, its been awhile since an article made me this angry.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Jesus, how the fuck can a lawyer get away with saying that kind of shit in court?

Like I said, "A SLICE OF OC HELL LIKE NONE OTHER." Not that idiotic misogynistic bullshit is limited to here alone, of course, but this is precisely what I would expect of assholes like this to do if they were from around here, especially when one of the accused has family connections to the local law enforcement. And if you want to include Moxley's coverage in that, there ya go.

"Welcome to the OC, bitch" doesn't sound so cute now, does it?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:54 (twenty-one years ago)

jesus christ... i read the first few paragraphs, and that's enough. fucking disgusting.

― Ian Johnson (orion), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Are there any legal junkies who can say why a lawyer would take this line of defense? Seriously...it's not going to make him well liked, obviously, but perhaps he thinks it will plant a seed of doubt in juror's minds?

― Sengai, Monday, 17 May 2004 23:55 (twenty-one years ago)

you'd think it would just enrage any reasonable juror

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm genuinely concerned for the future psychological this will inflict on the (already, likely, unsable) victim. Beyond being sadistic, misogynistic, and creepy, it's absolutely unethical. Disbar the fucker and slash his tires with a femur.

― x Jeremy (Atila the Honeybun), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Hmm. Keep in mind too that a huge part of my annoyance right now is because I wouldn't put it past a local jury to acquit precisely because of the tone of defense tactics. I wouldn't put it past them at all. I sure as hell hope otherwise, though.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:58 (twenty-one years ago)

fucking vile

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:58 (twenty-one years ago)

(hopefully they are enraged - surely the video is enough, mind you not all jurors are reasonable) x-post

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:58 (twenty-one years ago)

While I can plausibly perceive a hung jury, there's something in my head that's refusing to believe they could be found not guilty.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 17 May 2004 23:59 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, common sense and common decency. I'm not going to post again, this is just pissing me off and nothing more.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 00:01 (twenty-one years ago)

http://daowie.poisonsoda.org/

Information about contacting the attorneys (I plan on leaving nasty voice mail messages) as well as filing complaints with the bar association.

― Ian Johnson (orion), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 00:02 (twenty-one years ago)

thanks for the link, ian.

― lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 00:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I read this article a week ago or something. Horrible stuff. :(

― Andrew (enneff), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 00:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Even ignoring the unnecessary detail, why on earth would you start an article about rape with a pun? Did he laugh when he thought of that? Does he expect us to laugh? Anyway, I've been annoyed enough by this man. Something tells me that someone who would write that article isn't going to be too bothered by hate-mail or voice messages - though I hop he is...

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 00:12 (twenty-one years ago)

someone who would write that article isn't going to be too bothered by hate-mail or voice messages

There's always the option to take a shit in his mailbox.

― martin m. (mushrush), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 00:13 (twenty-one years ago)

or fly a (very small) plane into his face.

― Ian Johnson (orion), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 00:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Judging by all the related articles it seems like this guy's fairly dedicated to making sure people know about the extent of the corruption involved in this, which makes it a shame he seems to be such a total dick.

― ferg (Ferg), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 00:36 (twenty-one years ago)

i just typed a long response and got kicked off line (see why I haven't visited this thread since starting it).

I'm honestly surprised that the majority of the responses here are shock at the article. This is the third piece on this story I've read in that paper and I have yet to have that reaction.

Make you uncomfortable? good. I think graphic details like this should be shared b/c saying "he raped the victim" isn't enough to describe the horror one person inflicts on another. People need to squirm and be disgusted. . .maybe it will change the attitudes so many people have about assault and abuse.

Getting upset over this journalist is failing to put your anger where it really belongs, the absolute profanity being committed by the defense. Is this unusual in sex crimes prosecution? nah. it's just gotten some ink in this case.

― Ask For Samantha (thatgirl), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 00:42 (twenty-one years ago)

it made me uncomfortable because the article seemed to be written in a way to get a prurient reaction.

we're reacting to the article not INSTEAD OF reacting to the defense arguments... the two things seem almost part of the same process don't they?

btw link above says:

"Not only do these attorneys imply that women who dress or act a certain way deserve to be raped, thus setting a dangerous precedent for the rights of rape victims who are seeking justice, they are also in clear violation of California's Rape Shield Law. This law states that a rape victim's prior sexual history cannot be used against them to undermine their credibility in court."

i thought so.

― amateurist, Tuesday, 18 May 2004 00:47 (twenty-one years ago)

"we're reacting to the article not INSTEAD OF reacting to the defense arguments... the two things seem almost part of the same process don't they?"

sorry i messed up that sentence.

i meant to say that our shock at the article is not in place of shock at the defense attorneys' tactics.

― amateurist, Tuesday, 18 May 2004 00:48 (twenty-one years ago)

we're reacting to the article not INSTEAD OF reacting to the defense arguments... the two things seem almost part of the same process don't they?

not to me. It seems people here are upset the article was written.

xpost - i think the shock at the article is misplaced energy that should be directed at the perpetrators and the attorneys who are in the process of committing another crime.

― Ask For Samantha (thatgirl), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 00:50 (twenty-one years ago)

But they are both acts of abuse, the article and the crime. It's not misplaced energy, it's just horrifying that someone would exploit a piece of news like that. The article should have been written, and it should have been written well. I don't need a journalist to go into as much detail as possible to convince me rape is disgusting and evil. No-one here has claimed the defense is at all justifiable, it is repulsive and sickening that someone would say those things, as it is repulsive and sickening that someone would examine th minutiae of an ordeal in a girl's local paper.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 00:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I disagree. And I'm sorry I started this thread now.

I'm going to employ the kill-file in my mind and stop reading it now as it's pissing me off.

― Ask For Samantha (thatgirl), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 00:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry! I didn't mean to upset you.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 00:59 (twenty-one years ago)

In some cases ... yes. But in the case in which the accuser is a "troubled young lady" with "vagina and anus completely shaved" the inclusion of sensitive (and disgusting) description crosses the lines of taste (and I don't mean that in the snide, puritanical sense - more in the manner of 'revolting gratuity') the writing is absolutely absurd and fetishistic. The transcription of the jury's reactions - interspersed with Moxley's comments is lewd, manipulative, and perverse.

Haidl had provided a soundtrack to the sex recorded by his Sony Hand-Held camcorder. It was bass-heavy hip-hop, with lyrics such as, "We like pussy. We like pussy. We like pussy . . . Fuck an asshole too . . . We just want to have sex!"

Offers NO enlightening details, NO revelatory prose, nothing at all except for one of those - you know - shocking examples of youth run amuck, on par with the passive-aggressive drugsploitation porn "See Teens Crazed by Pot Involved In Immoral Behavior!" et al. I won't buy any argument for this as responsible journalism, nor an argument of shock tactics to 'get a point across' insofar as it's basically Moxley-hardcore masquerading as mock-outrage.

― x Jeremy (Atila the Honeybun), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 01:01 (twenty-one years ago)

The tone of it is pretty trashy even aside from the detail. It has a PUN, fucksake. There's plenty of moral outrage to go round.

― ferg (Ferg), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 01:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I was not outraged the articl was written at all - I was apalled it was written, as I said, like sick rape porn. One can go into detail of a case without using phrases like "well hung" to discribe the rapist, surely!?! They shouldnt be held up as virile examples of manhood and the act should not provide any "entertainment" value.

xpost what ferg said, also.

― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 01:08 (twenty-one years ago)

But soon the viewer learns that a well-endowed Spann has entered the unconscious Doe doggy-style

This kind of phrasing REALLY wasnt neccesary, was my point.

― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 01:10 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, Sam, the piece is so remarkably tastelessly written it just redoubles my/our disgust at the actions it describes. reading it is sort of like watching a snuff film about a mass murder--the thing itself is appalling enough without being turned into a piece of shit work of art, too.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 02:10 (twenty-one years ago)

arrrgh. let me rephrase that. it redoubles our disgust--first at the actions it describes, then at the writer for turning it into a prurient sideshow.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 02:11 (twenty-one years ago)

and sorry, but no one I've read so far on this thread has seemed "in shock that the article was written" by itself, sorry. you're disgusted, we're all disgusted. but some of us are disgusted by the writing AS WELL AS the attorney, the crime, the fact that the people who committed it have even the remotest chance of getting away with it, and everything else. it's layered.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 02:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Particularly eye-catching:

"How many teenagers have a shaved vagina and anus? I don’t know, but I can think of a reason. Sex! She’s a sexual person!"

Will no-one rid me of these sexual people?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 08:45 (twenty-one years ago)

"Are there any legal junkies who can say why a lawyer would take this line of defense?"

Yes -- either the lawyer is an idiot, or he has reason to believe that there is at least one juror who thinks that teenage sex predator nymphos exist and deserve what they get. Both possibilities seem to me to be equally likely (I read Ned's posts as saying that this kind of crude misogeny is not at all rare in OC), and the two possiblities are not by any means mutually exclusive.

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 10:58 (twenty-one years ago)

this wouldn't be rape in scotland. :(

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 11:05 (twenty-one years ago)

I read Ned's posts as saying that this kind of crude misogeny is not at all rare in OC

You read them rightly.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 11:53 (twenty-one years ago)

http://cache.filmz.dk/1910_272x180.jpg
http://www.ragtagfilm.com/archives/images/madmax.jpg
http://www.theworldjournal.com/special/movies/2001/boondocksaints.jpg

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 18 May 2004 12:05 (twenty-one years ago)

My sentiments exactly.

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 12:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I just realized that the Defense attorney's case makes more sense when you consider that he's presenting it to a California jury. Twinkies, anyone?

― Sengai, Tuesday, 18 May 2004 12:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Fuck off.

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 18 May 2004 12:21 (twenty-one years ago)

In just his opening statement, a pacing, finger-pointing Cavallo told the jury that the girl—next to the tape itself, the prosecution’s star witness--is "a nut," "a pathological liar," "a cheater," an "out-of-control girl," "the aggressor," a wanna-be "porn star," "a troubled young lady," "a tease--that’s what she is!" "a mess," a "master manipulator," a "little opportunist," "a compulsive liar," "a cheat--that’s what she is" and a "callous" drug addict and alcoholic who trimmed her pubic hair, bragged about liking group sex and once drank a beer in a car.

Well, STONE HER.

"Why was her vagina and anus completely shaved?" Cavallo asked jurors.

Why don't your subject and verb match? I would side against him for that alone if I was a juror on this case.

The rest of the article was really, really horrifying, but at the end of the day I think I agree much more with Sam than I do with everyone else; if we're going to rank the abject stupidity and outright evil involved with this situation, I think that the sick fucks who did this and the attourney attempting to completely destroy this woman rank MUCH higher on the Shoot-Em-In-The-Head-Ometer than the guy who wrote this article.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 12:44 (twenty-one years ago)

(I think that means you agree with everyone else)

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 12:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah but the point you and Sam are missing when calling everybody else out is that NOBODY EVER SAID THEY WEREN'T, it just so happens that the tone of this discussion shifted because the first couple of posts focused on that aspect of the situation.

What in the hell are we even fighting about here? This whole argument is made out of absolutely NOTHING and COMPLETELY irrelevant to the crime here, which if we look at statistics, is being committed again, probably right now, probably more than once, probably in the CITY YOU LIVE IN.

Congratulations. The rapists, the defense lawyer, the journalist, all of them are assholes. You are RIGHT. Doesn't that feel GOOD.

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 18 May 2004 12:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow I am getting violently enraged thinking about the utter hopelessness of this entire species and am going outside for a little bit. Sorry for the outburst.

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 18 May 2004 12:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think one post that basically says "I want to shoot the people who did this more than I want to shoot the guy who wrote that article" really qualifies as fighting about this.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 12:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I totally agree with Sam - I wasn't disturbed by the fact that the journalist published all of the details, in fact, I'm GLAD, because there is no way any woman would consent to shit like that. Sam, I hope you're still reading.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 13:26 (twenty-one years ago)

The point isn't that the journalist wrote up the details--it's that they did it with so little tact and with such a gleeful, drooling style that it automatically turned me/most of us got mad at him, too.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 19:57 (twenty-one years ago)

that should be "made me/most of us," not turned.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 19:58 (twenty-one years ago)

and really, the only reason anyone is talking about that to begin with is that the actual case is SO TOTALLY FUCKING RIDICULOUSLY RETARDEDLY HORRIFYING IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY and, really, what else is there to say about it except what Tombot did in his outburst?

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 20:00 (twenty-one years ago)

I understand that. All I'm saying is that beating the writer of that article into a bloody smear would only happen after staking the defendants over an ant nest naked in the desert and smearing honey and blood on their genitals, followed by hammering four-inch nails into the webbing of the defense attourneys' hands and slowly dripping hydrocloric acid into their eyes and nasal passages.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 20:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I couldn't finish reading this article. It's making me blind with rage. Humanity is so disappointing.

― Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 20:05 (twenty-one years ago)

I couldn't even sleep last night, after reading that article.

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 20:15 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.federalpost.ru/issue.img/6105_teen.jpg
I think this is a picture of these three little Nazis. Just giving you something to laugh at.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 20:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I have known about this case for a while. I avoid thinking about it too much, for obvious reasons.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 20:30 (twenty-one years ago)

But yeah, to say again: life here isn't the TV show, for better and for worse.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 20:47 (twenty-one years ago)

VengaDan, I think all of that is implied.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 18 May 2004 22:28 (twenty-one years ago)

As others have noted, "well-endowed" and "doggy style" are both part of the vocabulary of titillation, not outrage and shock. He could easily have been detailed without resorting to tactless narration -- thus the author is in part implicating himself in the woman's persecution.

― Leeefuse 73 (Leee), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 02:21 (twenty-one years ago)

To what extent are the lawyers just doing their job? Are they legally required to do so to the best of their abilities, and could the defnedants sue them for not accurately providing a view into the defendants' twisted world?

PS:I don't actually believe a word of the previous paragraph, I'm just curious.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 06:57 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?sImagePath=Current_Rules.gif&sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/Rules%20%26%20Regulations/Rules%20of%20Professional%20Conduct&sFileType=HTML&sCatHtmlPath=html/RPC_Current-Rules-3-110.html

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 07:33 (twenty-one years ago)

she testified today and supposedly fucked up her case but i wasnt there.

― chaki_burger (chaki), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 08:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not surprised. Anyone who thinks rape trials are conducted fairly will have a rude awakening if they ever attend one.

The journo wrotes like a defence lawyer pulling his punches, I',m glad you are all so disgusted though; it gives me hope.

― badger Kitten (badger Kitten), Friday, 21 May 2004 18:02 (twenty-one years ago)

is there a story on her testimony online anywhere?

― kyle (akmonday), Friday, 21 May 2004 18:19 (twenty-one years ago)

one month passes...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/28/video.rape.trial/index.html

fuck! mistrial

― ¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿ (ex , Tuesday, 29 June 2004 16:53 (twenty-one years ago)

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 16:56 (twenty-one years ago)

IT WAS ON VIDEO

― ¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿ (ex , Tuesday, 29 June 2004 16:58 (twenty-one years ago)

you have got to be kidding me.

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 16:58 (twenty-one years ago)

ANGRY

― ¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿ (ex , Tuesday, 29 June 2004 16:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I can't even read about this case anymore, I get so goddamned pissed off.

― Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Can Orange County just burn to the fucking ground already?

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I think we'd need a few more nukes than the current US arsenal has to have any effect.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:07 (twenty-one years ago)

This is so, so sad. What the fuck is wrong with the justice system in my state? I am deeply ashamed to be Californian and human today.

― Neb Reyob (Ben Boyer), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)

is there still a chance they can be re-tried?

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:17 (twenty-one years ago)

"Prosecutor Dan Hess has not indicated whether he will retry the teens."

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:18 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm just looking over archived articles about the trial (as much as i can stomach, anyway). it seems like a mess from start to finish.

― lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I hope so. They should be in court reliving this nightmare for years.

Does anyone else remember the horrifying case from several years ago of the teenager who walked in on his friend raping a 6-year-old girl in the bathroom of a casino in Primm, Nevada? The kid saw his friend doing this to the kid and walked away, went back to gambling, and was not charged with anything. The rapist went to prison, but the friend just went about his life as normal and went off to college in Berkeley in the Fall.

It infuriates me that this kid is allowed to walk around free, and the thought that these kids could end up free is disgusting to me.

Another in the long, wonderful line of California triumphs like Rodney King, O.J. Simpson, and so on... and so on...

Fuck, I am so so so so so disgusted right now.

― Neb Reyob (Ben Boyer), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:26 (twenty-one years ago)

the l.a. times article gave the impression that retrial will definitely be requested. if anyone has any faith left in human nature, then read the jurors' comments to lose those remaining shreds.

― lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:36 (twenty-one years ago)

url?

― ¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿ (ex , Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:38 (twenty-one years ago)

those defense lawyers deserve an ass-kicking.

― Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:40 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/orange/la-me-haidl29jun29,1,6890663.story?coll=la-editions-orange

you need to register, though.

― lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:41 (twenty-one years ago)

"The evidence was real weak, which is one of the reasons we couldn't come to a decision. There was too much he-said, she-said."

WTF?????

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:43 (twenty-one years ago)

"Ambiguity ran rampant through the entire case," he [asshole juror] said. "I would understand why some people could view [the incident] as a crime. I could understand why some people would view this as a misunderstanding."

― lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:43 (twenty-one years ago)

let's see how you "misunderstand" things when someone comes after you with a pool cue and a snapple bottle, motherfucker.

― lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:44 (twenty-one years ago)

there was ONE holdout for guilty. the rest, no. gold star for juror twelve, christ.

xposts

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:44 (twenty-one years ago)

didn't they sodomize a girl who was PASSED OUT with a fucking pool cue?!!?!?!? xpost

― ¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿ (ex , Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:45 (twenty-one years ago)

'Welcome to the OC,' like I've said before. Yup.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 17:45 (twenty-one years ago)

oseph G. Cavallo
319 E 17th St
Santa Ana, CA 92706-2804
(714) 954-0481

John Drummond Barnett
Suite 308
One City Blvd. West
Orange, CA 92868
(714) 634-3397

Peter Joseph Morreale
Suite F182
3410 La Sierra Ave
Riverside, CA 92503-5203
(909) 789-0613

― defense lawyers involved in this casethe, Tuesday, 29 June 2004 18:08 (twenty-one years ago)

"The L.A. Times has reported all of the attorneys are being paid by Haidl’s father, Orange County Assistant Sheriff Don Haidl, and while it’s been reported the attorneys have the freedom of, “unlimited billing,” they are, no doubt, limited in their efforts to defend their individual clients."

― taxi driver, Tuesday, 29 June 2004 18:09 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.perfectdata.com/investor/10K_March2001.pdf

DON HAIDL
No.1 Twin Lakes Circle
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625

http://mq-mapgend.websys.aol.com/mqmapgend?MQMapGenRequest=FDR2dmwjDE%3byt29%26FDJnci4Jkqj%2cMMCJ%3aHOEvq%3bab096a%3a%29u2a5425%26%40%24%3a%26%40%24g%26wzx%26a8x%26ESEKGF%3dTPWIK%2cbxgu72%26%3d2n0r8nd%40%24%3a%26%40%24%3a%26a2%3a

― google for justice, Tuesday, 29 June 2004 18:16 (twenty-one years ago)

she was fucking one of the boys awake on the video right before the pool table incident. she told her friends "i dont know why they drugged me i would've done it anyway." im not defending the asshole kids here but im just pointing out reasons why they might have been some doubt that would put these kids away for life.

― Sir Chaki McBeer III (chaki), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 18:46 (twenty-one years ago)

dude, the pool stick.....

― ¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿ (ex , Tuesday, 29 June 2004 18:47 (twenty-one years ago)

The thread just managed to get even more sad and disgusting!

Chaki, where's that info from? Not saying it's not true, just wondering if you have a link or source or something...

― Neb Reyob (Ben Boyer), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 18:52 (twenty-one years ago)

What the fuck's with posting that map? Should the California ILXors go an beat up the kid? Is that gonna make things better?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 18:55 (twenty-one years ago)

yes

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 18:57 (twenty-one years ago)

(heh)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 18:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I was tempted to edit those posts but the info is also public domain.

― MODERATOR (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 18:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Don Haidl gets a visit ......

http://new.heimat.de/home/ctrl-z/fairy_tales/images/hello_batman.jpg

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 19:00 (twenty-one years ago)

that's probably a gated community with extra special orange county sherrif/rentacop detail.

― gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 19:01 (twenty-one years ago)

i saw the article to which chaki is referring. it was in an orange county paper. it seems like the girl really harmed her own case, but it's beyond disgusting that prior behavior excuses the gang rape of an unconscious girl.

― lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 19:02 (twenty-one years ago)

doesn't california have sodomy laws that some of these acts, consentual or not would fall under??!?!?!

― ¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿ (ex , Tuesday, 29 June 2004 19:07 (twenty-one years ago)

doesn't california have sodomy laws that some of these acts, consentual or not would fall under??!?!?!

1) Probably not. It's California. Which is to say, at least on that front, it's not as backwards as many other states.

2) If it did, wouldn't it be a lesser of two evils thing? I mean, sodomy laws which could be used to prosecute consentual acts between adults ideally shouldn't be on the books. Using something like that just to catch these fuckers is kinda like risking sending innocent folks to prison just to get one (or in this case three) guilty one(s).

― martin m. (mushrush), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 19:10 (twenty-one years ago)

yea, there should be huge outrage about to start, no?

― ¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿ (ex , Tuesday, 29 June 2004 19:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm still really hoping Batman shows up at Haidl's front door.

Other than that, I got nothin' yet.

― martin m. (mushrush), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 19:15 (twenty-one years ago)

doesn't california have sodomy laws that some of these acts, consentual or not would fall under??!?!?!

hahahahahahahahaha... where do you think most of the *ahem* well-documented scenes of sodomy take place?

― gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 19:16 (twenty-one years ago)

(and don't say "in the butt bob")

― gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 19:16 (twenty-one years ago)

http://daowie.poisonsoda.org/

5/28/04 Update: I'm sure by now you've all heard that the case ended in a mistrial, with 11 jurors claiming not guilty despite videotaped evidence.

The bar association is requiring roughly 5,000 pieces of documents from me by four days from now before they'll even consider looking into the many, many open violations of rape shield laws in this courtroom. I do not know how to obtain most of this information.

I'm sorry, but I'm at a loss as to what to do.

Much thanks to everyone who participated in the letter-writing campaign.

-Katherine

― ¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿ (ex , Tuesday, 29 June 2004 19:16 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost: (or "on gear!'s couch")

― gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 19:16 (twenty-one years ago)

well, "unnatural acts"

― ¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿ (ex , Tuesday, 29 June 2004 19:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Holy shit. What OTHER crime can you be videotaped doing, and still not be convicted? Gah. This is HIDEOUS.

― Layna Andersen (Layna Andersen), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 19:34 (twenty-one years ago)

There's no indication that the 11 jury members didn't "get" the videotape... Apparently they just felt that there was sufficient reasonable doubt as to the intentions and desires surrounding the woman and those three pricks.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate really. It's just that the "it was on video, so how could they not convict?" argument doesn't really hold much water legally. (Certainly it should hold water, and I guess that's what folks are pissed about, but that really isn't how the system works unfortunately.)

I do think these assheads are guilty. Either that or the public is missing A HUGE HUGE HUGE part of the story. I suspect the former though.

― martin m. (mushrush), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 19:57 (twenty-one years ago)

A bunch of white cops can be videotaped beating a black guy and not be convicted, right? I mean this wouldn't be the first time...

― martin m. (mushrush), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 19:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Good point. But that and rape, that's about it.

― Layna Andersen (Layna Andersen), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 20:27 (twenty-one years ago)

It will be interesting to see what happens in the case from last week with the cop beating the shit out of the guy with his flashlight (caught on videotape, of course).

― Neb Reyob (Ben Boyer), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 20:50 (twenty-one years ago)

[off topic -- neb, did you used to go to berkeley and work on the squelch? if so i knew your sister!]

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 20:53 (twenty-one years ago)

We can all hope (or pray if you're into that) for some poetic justice I guess.

Like those three turds get pulled over for speeding at some point and a bunch of pissed off cops beat the tar out of them on videotape and get acquitted.

― martin m. (mushrush), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 21:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Like those three turds get pulled over for speeding at some point and a bunch of pissed off cops beat the tar out of them on videotape and get acquitted

Not likely to happen. Defendent Haidl's father is the Assistant Sheriff and a big time Orange County power broker. The cops already looked the other way when Haidl got busted for possession and that's not likely to change.

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 21:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Sometimes vigilante justice sounds like a good idea.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 21:23 (twenty-one years ago)

God ... and you people get mad at Jon for posting pictures of animated gifs?

― deanomgwtf!!!p%3Fmsgid%3D4581997 (deangulberry), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 21:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Chaki, where's that info from? Not saying it's not true, just wondering if you have a link or source or something

ive been following this case pretty closely mostly on talk radio so i dont have any articles handy.

― Sir Chaki McBeer III (chaki), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 21:31 (twenty-one years ago)

is it just me or have tv lawyers created a whole generation of monster lawyers who think it works that way in real life?

― benito mussolinington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 21:32 (twenty-one years ago)

CHICKEN | EGG

― deanomgwtf!!!p%3Fmsgid%3D4581997 (deangulberry), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 21:34 (twenty-one years ago)

but now TV's giving us a generation of monster crime-scene techs to make up for it.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I would say that TV lawyers are more responsible for creating armchair 'lawyers.'

― deanomgwtf!!!p%3Fmsgid%3D4581997 (deangulberry), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 21:37 (twenty-one years ago)

dean OTM. Why just last night I was watching Law & Order, and I turned to Jen and said "Your Honor, permission to treat this witness as hostile" right before Ben Stone said the same thing. And it wasn't cause I'd seen the episode before, it was cause I KNOW HOW IT WORKS.

― martin m. (mushrush), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 21:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Strangely enough though, people still don't seem to understand the concept of reasonable doubt.

― deanomgwtf!!!p%3Fmsgid%3D4581997 (deangulberry), Tuesday, 29 June 2004 22:35 (twenty-one years ago)

eight months pass...

They got theirs.

On Wednesday afternoon, almost three years after they raped an unconscious 16-year-old girl on a pool table in the garage of a Newport Beach home, the Haidl Three finally came to justice—not with a bang, but with the somber, discernible click of handcuffs snapped on their wrists in a Santa Ana courtroom.

The three—Greg Haidl, Kyle Nachreiner and Keith Spann—were still sitting at the defense table when deputies following a judge’s order stepped up behind them and took them into custody.

By then, the jury that deliberated for three days before finding them guilty on 15 of 27 felonies had been escorted by guards from the courtroo

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:13 (twenty years ago)

That clip of the deputies slapping on the cuffs really is pretty powerful.

― you make me feel like a tyrannosaurus rex (deangulberry), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:25 (twenty years ago)

I deeply hope all three of them are sodomised in prison.

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 25 March 2005 02:31 (twenty years ago)

...with iced tea bottles, juice cans, lit cigarettes, etc.

― Austin's vengance (Austin, Still), Friday, 25 March 2005 03:10 (twenty years ago)

I hope they get fucking killed in prison, never mind this sodomy nonsense.

― Allyzay Subservient 50s-Type (allyzay), Friday, 25 March 2005 17:18 (twenty years ago)

um how about those fcking lawyers?? they seem just as villanous to me to be quite, quite honest.

― jane doe, slut ho, Friday, 25 March 2005 17:24 (twenty years ago)

fucking righteous

― Cabaret Voltron (PUNXSUTAWNEY PENIS), Friday, 25 March 2005 17:26 (twenty years ago)

They're not going to be prison to be killed while in prison, anonomo. That doesn't preclude someone doing something awful to them, just not in prison.

I mean their addresses are right up there.

― Allyzay Subservient 50s-Type (allyzay), Friday, 25 March 2005 17:26 (twenty years ago)

I deeply hope all three of them are sodomised in prison.

-- Trayce (spamspanke...), March 25th, 2005.

...with iced tea bottles, juice cans, lit cigarettes, etc.

-- Austin's vengance (austin.swinbur...), March 25th, 2005.

And I hope they are quite conscious for all of it.

― Hurting (Hurting), Friday, 25 March 2005 17:29 (twenty years ago)

Finally, some good news.

― Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Friday, 25 March 2005 17:36 (twenty years ago)

This is all assuming they even get sentenced jail time.

― Allyzay Subservient 50s-Type (allyzay), Friday, 25 March 2005 17:38 (twenty years ago)

I just heard that two of the little fuckers fled the country with the assistance of their parents, which brings two thoughts to mind

1 - the Judge should've seen this coming and ordered sentences to be carried out immediately.

2 - that's aiding and abetting, so the parents should hit lockup right fucking now.

― Austin Swinburn (Austin, Still), Friday, 25 March 2005 17:39 (twenty years ago)

holy shit. kill them all now.

ally zay garance dallas, i don't quite understand what you are saying, in your reply to me.

― swine & dine, Friday, 25 March 2005 17:42 (twenty years ago)

How is that possible if they were placed into police custody without bail???

xpost I was just saying everyone was describing what should happen in prison, but that does not preclude vicious violence outside of prison being enacted upon the lawyers.

― Allyzay Subservient 50s-Type (allyzay), Friday, 25 March 2005 17:43 (twenty years ago)

"ally zay garance dallas, i don't quite understand what you are saying, in your reply to me."

The lawyers aren't going to prison so they can't be killed in prison. Someone should kill them at their offices instead.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 25 March 2005 17:45 (twenty years ago)

Not that I am advocating that at all. Although obv I won't lose any sleep over it if it occurred. Is that skipping town thing for real? I can't find any reference on the OC Register.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 25 March 2005 17:46 (twenty years ago)

It was posted in comments at an lj with no link, sorry.

― Austin S (Austin, Still), Friday, 25 March 2005 17:49 (twenty years ago)

so, it should be taken with a grain of salt until greater news of it comes otherwise, then.

― donut debonair (donut), Friday, 25 March 2005 18:17 (twenty years ago)

so, even though there's a picture of two of the three clearly being cuffed, and being put into custody without bail, two out of the three have somehow escaped? Unless some weird ass jailbreak happened, I'm calling bullshit.

― donut debonair (donut), Friday, 25 March 2005 18:20 (twenty years ago)

Haidl has been held in county jail since November, after a series of brushes with the law that include a statutory rape charge related to another 16-year-old girl he met at a party the night of the mistrial.

Briseño revoked bail for Nachreiner and Spann on Wednesday, saying the young men were potential flight risks, represented a public threat and faced possible prison sentences.

― you make me feel like a tyrannosaurus rex (deangulberry), Friday, 25 March 2005 18:24 (twenty years ago)

It is bullshit, but I guess if the other posts are going to be people wishing sodomy on others, then livejournal reporting doesn't seem that much out of place on this thread.

― you make me feel like a tyrannosaurus rex (deangulberry), Friday, 25 March 2005 18:25 (twenty years ago)

There was also discussion of a similar case in Chicago on this LJ thread, so it could be the post referred to that.

― Austin Swinburn (Austin, Still), Friday, 25 March 2005 18:34 (twenty years ago)

http://www.livejournal.com/users/ludickid/378340.html

― Austin S (Austin, Still), Friday, 25 March 2005 18:36 (twenty years ago)

Yeah the post you're talking about rather clearly is referencing a different case.

― Allyzay Subservient 50s-Type (allyzay), Friday, 25 March 2005 18:44 (twenty years ago)

dean you taking a high and mighty moral stance on the content of other people's posts would be funny if I was the type of person who got his yuks from other people's pathetic lack of self-awareness

― TOMBOT, Friday, 25 March 2005 19:27 (twenty years ago)

there is no /irony tag.

― Ian John50n (orion), Friday, 25 March 2005 19:32 (twenty years ago)

wtf

― BOATPEOPLEHATEFUCK (ex machina), Friday, 25 March 2005 19:36 (twenty years ago)

i dont think that they should be raped, i think that prison rape should not be inflicted on anyone, that it is a perversion of justice...i do understand (and in many ways share) the hate here though./

― anthony, Friday, 25 March 2005 19:46 (twenty years ago)

Dean, please add me to the list of people who wish sodomy ON THE CONVICTED RAPISTS, kthxbye. Directions for use: Insert M-80 into Haidl's anus, light fuse, get away.

― Curious George Finds the Ether Bottle (Rock Hardy), Friday, 25 March 2005 19:50 (twenty years ago)

anthony 100% otm

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 25 March 2005 20:06 (twenty years ago)

dean you taking a high and mighty moral stance on the content of other people's posts would be funny if I was the type of person who got his yuks from other people's pathetic lack of self-awareness

How am I being high and mighty? I'm saying there's a huge difference between calling someone self-centered, which Amateurist will likely admit, and wishing that someone be violently raped or blown up.

It seems odd to me that people are frowning on the behavior of the lawyers and then turning around and hoping that more violence will come of this situation. As with any case, it is never black and white, so I am confused as to why a bunch of spectators who are far removed from the evidence would consider themselves so well-informed as to imagine their own rape fantasy sentencing, which in and of itself is quite a high and mighty stance.

This is the system we have set up and this is the outcome of its effort.

― you make me feel like a tyrannosaurus rex (deangulberry), Friday, 25 March 2005 20:10 (twenty years ago)

Dean, please add me to the list of people who wish sodomy ON THE CONVICTED RAPISTS, kthxbye. Directions for use: Insert M-80 into Haidl's anus, light fuse, get away.

If it makes you feel better to do this, then that's your decision. These CONVICTED RAPISTS were CONVICTED by a COURT OF LAW where they be SENTENCED APPROPRIATELY. If you feel their sentence should include SODOMY AND FIRECRACKERS then maybe you should take some action there. Or you can just imagine these things in your head and get some pleasure out of that.

That said, it seems that justice has been done and that system that we've set up seems to work.

― you make me feel like a tyrannosaurus rex (deangulberry), Friday, 25 March 2005 20:13 (twenty years ago)

shut up, troll.

― anal b. johnson, Friday, 25 March 2005 20:18 (twenty years ago)

It seems weird to me that vigilante justice is not considered the troll position here, but ok, anonymous poster.

― you make me feel like a tyrannosaurus rex (deangulberry), Friday, 25 March 2005 20:19 (twenty years ago)

Could you imagine if Congress passed a bill that allowed rapists to be sentenced to sodomy and anal firecrackers? EXTREME GOVERNMENT!

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 25 March 2005 20:26 (twenty years ago)

I'm now imagining that crossed with the Terry Schiavo bill and I must go and drink the pain away.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 25 March 2005 20:27 (twenty years ago)

dean, i think people who do things like this should be killed. who determines "appropriate sentences"? oh right--the same sort of people who have been using variations on the "she was asking for it" philosophies for years and years and years and years ad infinitum.

quite frankly i would not be shocked if these men get nothing more than probation. because it happens every single fucking day in sexual assault/abuse cases, and in this case they're well connected. the only thing that indicates there's some hope in an actual appropriate sentence and not an "appropriate sentence" in the case is the fact that the one kid seems to be a repeat offender who has been being held for quite a long period now because he can't keep his hands the hell off the ladies.

some things don't have as much grey as some of us would like to believe. vigilante justice is an appealing fantasy (though "I hope they get sodomized" is kind of weird to me mainly because why waste the time on it, just give them a well fucking beating) to many because of what i've just said: who the hell determines what is appropriate in the justice system? an idea of popular justice is a bad thing, everyone in the world would get executed immediately, but otoh i'm not sure what kind of standards our judicial system is actually upholding.

― Allyzay Subservient 50s-Type (allyzay), Friday, 25 March 2005 20:29 (twenty years ago)

Ned Raggett, you are an evil, evil man.

― The Ghost of Feeding Tube vs Firecracker ARGH (Dan Perry), Friday, 25 March 2005 20:31 (twenty years ago)

it beggars the imagination to expect the justice system to create opportunities for victims, offenders and community members who want to do so to meet to discuss the crime and its aftermath, expect offenders to take steps to repair the harm they have caused, seek to restore victims and offenders as whole, contributing members of society,provide opportunities for parties with a stake in a specific crime to participate in its resolution. This is from a secular theory, restorative justice, I said it before but I think it's ok for me to paste it again, the talion law is so passé, the idea of a restorative justice is way more promising to go beyond vengeance by increasing forgiveness. I don't know, the difficulty in this sounds amost impossible , but, it's a form of self-expression that is more challenging.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Friday, 25 March 2005 20:44 (twenty years ago)

I'm just happy that the sociopathic defending lawyers' brute-force dickwad technique DIDN'T work, and didn't set off a dangerous precedent for future sexual abuse cases -- HAD the three been acquitted.

― donut debonair (donut), Friday, 25 March 2005 21:19 (twenty years ago)

dear god, to have been a juror in this case... for THREE FUCKING YEARS, on and off. I would definitely buy each of the jurors a nice big glass of beer or ale, at the very least, if I met any of them.

― donut debonair (donut), Friday, 25 March 2005 21:21 (twenty years ago)

Wait there had to have been two separate juries (at least) right? You don't retry a case with the SAME jury?!?!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 25 March 2005 21:35 (twenty years ago)

Hahahaha!

"I know you were deadlocked the first time but we're hoping the intervening 16 months have given you a fresh perspective."

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 25 March 2005 21:36 (twenty years ago)

does california not have a rape shield law?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 25 March 2005 23:24 (twenty years ago)

It does.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 25 March 2005 23:28 (twenty years ago)

so um like how...?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 25 March 2005 23:29 (twenty years ago)

ahem... um like HOW have these guys not been disbarred yet?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 25 March 2005 23:29 (twenty years ago)

You're gonna have to ask the judge that question.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 25 March 2005 23:31 (twenty years ago)

does he read ILE?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 25 March 2005 23:32 (twenty years ago)

I missed the separate trial thing.. thanks, Alex. I'd still buy the 24 jurors a drink each if I ever met each of them anyway. yeesh.

sl0ck1, while I find the defense lawyers' approach absolutely loathsome and reprehensible, was it illegal or low enough for them to be barred? I'm hardly a legal expert, so I'll defer to the lawyers here.

I suppose the plaintiffs COULD sue the lawyers for emotional trauma, though -- given the extremity of the abuse.

― donut debonair (donut), Friday, 25 March 2005 23:37 (twenty years ago)

I say fuck the original mistrial jury; THEY PAY THEIR OWN WAY.

― The Ghost of I MIGHT Buy Those Sorry Motherfuckers a Blatz (Dan Perry), Saturday, 26 March 2005 00:28 (twenty years ago)

hahaha but they still get invited out, right?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 26 March 2005 03:07 (twenty years ago)

eleven months pass...

Sentencing tomorrow. Meantime, thank heavens, one of the good guys.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 9 March 2006 23:20 (nineteen years ago)

that is the worst lede i have ever read.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 10 March 2006 06:32 (nineteen years ago)

Superior Court Judge Frank Briseño isn’t fat or female, and we can all pray he doesn’t sing. But on March 10, the fat lady finally sings in the Haidl Three gang-rape saga.

― Knute Rockne, All American (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 10 March 2006 07:23 (nineteen years ago)

!!!

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 10 March 2006 07:49 (nineteen years ago)

I know this will offend dean again but I really, really hope some kind of freak disaster occurs and wipes out the entire Haidl family all at once. Like what happens at the end of Poltergeist, except with all of them in the house.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Friday, 10 March 2006 15:57 (nineteen years ago)

OC fuckjobs in being completely unable to fool actual real human beings from Earth shocker (also that OC Weekly Personals ad on the right column is too mindboggling depressing for me to laugh at)

the lawyers and PIs involved in the case should also be in the house when it is sucked into hell. Actually I think what I would prefer is that they all get acute radiation sickness and die piece by piece over a period of 9-12 months.

― TOMBOT, Friday, 10 March 2006 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

Where's The Limey when you need him

― TOMBOT, Friday, 10 March 2006 16:05 (nineteen years ago)

We could give them all gender-reassignment surgery...?

― Dan (With Tuning Forks) Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:14 (nineteen years ago)

also that OC Weekly Personals ad on the right column is too mindboggling depressing for me to laugh at

OTM.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:16 (nineteen years ago)

Wait, so am I the only person who saw this then:

http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/800/14845/1138408168/oasc04.247realmedia.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/TheVoice/oc-askamexican-promo/ask-a-mexican-box-revised.gif

― Dan (What Personal Ad?) Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:18 (nineteen years ago)

UH YEAH I WAS TOO BUSY STARING AT THAT TO NOTICE SECRET FATTEY AT THE BOTTOM, WHERE ARE YR HEADS AT PEOPLE?

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:19 (nineteen years ago)

That's Gustavo Arellano's column and he kicks ass -- funny as hell, great food and cultural studies writer, plus an evil sense of humor.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:20 (nineteen years ago)

You got all that from the animated GIF?

― Dan (Because I Didn't) Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:21 (nineteen years ago)

A recent article on Gustavo

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:21 (nineteen years ago)

Dan, this is the equivalent of someone who has never heard of the Cure seeing a random slogan or album title plus Robert's photo, you talking about the Cure in great details and the person responding "And you got all that from a photo?" ;-)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:22 (nineteen years ago)

wow, bandoliers too! that's some attention to detail!

― kingfish da notorious teletabby (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:23 (nineteen years ago)

I think the level of potential offense Robert Smith's image could cause in unaware pasty white people is significantly less than the level of potential offense that animated GIF could cause in unaware Mexicans.

― Dan (I Could Be Wrong) Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:26 (nineteen years ago)

You'd be surprised, all those persecuted goths. They shoot up schools, you know.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:27 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, I don't doubt anything you say but all that GIF did was make me say "OKAY WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?"

(xpost: HAhahahahaha "I was so mad about that picture of the pudgy middle-aged guy wearing makeup that I had to go shoot a cheerleader.")

― Dan (Mind Of Mencia Without Context) Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:28 (nineteen years ago)

T/S: mexican caricatures w/ white hi-tops

― kingfish da notorious teletabby (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:29 (nineteen years ago)

all that GIF did was make me say "OKAY WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?"

And now they've got you talking and thinking about something you never knew about before! THE POWER OF MARKETING! (Look, when I first saw it two years back I was all 'whuh?,' but I figured out almost immediately it was Gustavo doing it and it all made sense. Context, people! And if you're not reading the article link I provided then go there and read the man's own words!)

HAhahahahaha "I was so mad about that picture of the pudgy middle-aged guy wearing makeup that I had to go shoot a cheerleader."

Next John Waters film right there!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:33 (nineteen years ago)

Ned, my point was that context presented for that ad was pretty much tailor-made to repell me. Also, I asked this elsewhere but WHO NEEDS INSTRUCTION ON HOW TO GROW A MUSTACHE????????

― Dan (Seriously, Who????????) Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:39 (nineteen years ago)

Step 1: Be a man or a post-menopausal woman.
Step 2: Don't shave.

PRESTO YOU HAVE A BUSHY MUSTACHE

― Dan (Almost The Exact Opposite Of Rocket Science) Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:41 (nineteen years ago)

Now, now, Dan, there are plenty of folks who need all the moustache-centric education they can get.

"Unfortunate Moustaches:" A picture thread

― kingfish da notorious teletabby (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:45 (nineteen years ago)

Ned, my point was that context presented for that ad was pretty much tailor-made to repell me.

I'll grant you that and figure you'll grant me where I'm coming from in turn.

Also, I asked this elsewhere but WHO NEEDS INSTRUCTION ON HOW TO GROW A MUSTACHE????????

Orange County, as I'm sure all sides will agree, is a curious place.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:47 (nineteen years ago)

(It occurs to me that maybe a key point is being missed -- the promo thing for Ask a Mexican appears *throughout* the site. Similarly with the OC Personals thing, more's the pity there.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:49 (nineteen years ago)

Anyway, back to the horrifying subject at hand -- six years for each of the bastards. Could have been longer, more's the pity, but given everything I'm glad, I was expecting some last minute probation nonsense out of left field.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 11 March 2006 01:43 (nineteen years ago)

The defense lawyers were scum to the end, BTW:

Haidl’s attorney, Al Stokke, went after Jane Doe, denying that her emotional stress could be positively linked to the attack. He criticized a prosecutor’s request that the three not be segregated from the general prison population as “without question, the most outrageous position I have ever seen.” It was tantamount, he said, to “calling for their murder.”

Oh, I weep.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 11 March 2006 01:44 (nineteen years ago)

OC Register report, with more quotations. The poor little lambs sound so sad, really.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 11 March 2006 01:48 (nineteen years ago)

grrrrr

― R.I.P. Concrete Octopus ]-`: (ex machina), Saturday, 11 March 2006 01:59 (nineteen years ago)

six years pass...

Tougher than the rest.

http://www.ocweekly.com/2012-04-26/news/jane-doe-greg-haidl-gang-rape/

Besides God and her parents, she credits her emergence to Schroeder and Shirley Mangio, a veteran courthouse victim advocate at Community Service Program Inc. "Shirley has really motivated me," says Doe. "The way she was there for me as a mentor, second mother and a best friend made me want to do that for other women."
In March, Doe became a certified victim's advocate and crisis-intervention counselor. She volunteers at least 18 hours per month at Project Sister Family Services in Los Angeles County. Counseling other victims is therapeutic.
"After a sexual assault, women think it's their fault," she explains. "They think they did something wrong. But I tell my victims they had nothing to do with it. Yes, they may have made a poor decision to go somewhere, but the assault was not their fault. There could be a naked prostitute standing on the corner, and that does not give men the right to rape her."
She already knows the central message of her speech at the upcoming victims' march.
"I want to send hope and to inspire other sexual assault victims," she says. "I want women to know that they can go to the depths of hell and still make it out."

http://www.ocregister.com/news/jane-351103-doe-haidl.html

The three served their sentences and are on parole, but happily the State Supreme Court told 'em to fuck off when it came to anything being overturned or removed from their record so I hope they're enjoying their slow motion comeuppance all the more. Last known news I found about 'em:

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-greg-haidl,0,1950024.story

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 April 2012 15:41 (thirteen years ago)

Carona is now a 66-month resident of a federal prison in Colorado following a corruption conviction. Jaramillo is out of custody, but only after serving both state and federal prison stints that would have been longer if he hadn't ratted out Carona. Haidl, who was caught writing off his son's legal defense as a fraudulent tax deduction, made out the best; after agreeing to surreptitiously wear a government body wire to record Carona discussing coverup efforts, he avoided prison and today enjoys mansion life in Las Vegas and Newport Coast.

Sheesh... Talk about bittersweet.

― Reality Check Cashing Services (Elvis Telecom), Thursday, 26 April 2012 17:51 (thirteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.

why i think i should've gone to law school - gang rape in OC