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

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)

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."

Related story:

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.