Conference turris::womannotes-v3

<    Anyone else beginning to suspect that Ken Cole may be her real father?

Do you mind explaining what you are talking about???

          Carol

    Re .0, oh, is this the Milford, Mass., case?  I didn't know they
    had found her.  Is he old enough to be her father?
    
    Lorna
    

    Sorry, I assumed this case was pretty much national news.
    
    Nicole Ravesi is a 5 year old little girl who developed a mutual
    close relationship with "family friend" Ken Cole, 24, whom Mrs. Ravesi
    had met during a "troubled" time in her marriage.  Both Debra Ravesi
    and Ken Cole drive school busses for a town in Massachusetts. 
    Holliston, I think.
    
    Ken often babysat, (there are 2 girls and 2 boys in the family), until his 
    strong attachment to Nicole  began to worry Debra Ravesi, her mother,
    who tried to break off ties with Ken.  Debra still lived with her
    husband but his comments always seemed strangely missing from newspaper
    accounts.
    
    Eventually, the Ravesis put their house on the market and Debra Ravesi
    told Ken Cole the family was moving out of state and he would never see
    Nicole again.
    
    Then Ken abducted Nicole, (and it was easy since she likes Ken very
    much and willingly went with him), and the pair became national news
    when the case was broadcast on "America's Most Wanted".  The abduction
    took place, I think, in early April or late March.
    
    Wednesday night, a trailer park owner in Florida who had befriended Cole 
    and Nicole, (and who had let them move into a trailer in the park), saw 
    their pictures on tv and notified the authorities who, with the park 
    owner's help, got Nicole and arrested Ken.
    
    The parents still seem awfully unfluttered to me.  Nicole was not upset
    about her situation, and seems to be comfortable and happy with Ken. 
    Everyone seems confident that he would never harm her himself and would
    do everything in his power to protect her and raise her as his own.
    That attitude seems strange to me.
    
    Quite a story, huh?  Now that he's caught, the truth will come out. 
    And his mother said some people will be "very surprised" once they
    learn the real story.

    I *jumped* to that conclusion too, however, it was reported that Nicole
    had a twin (a brother) so I couldn't figure out why the bond to Nicole
    and not the other child.

    -Debi-

    Really?  A twin?  Hmm, that does change things a bit.  How did I miss
    that fact?  The Boston news ought to be very interesting tonite.

    Re: .7
    
    Sandy, consider this scenario:
    
    Debra Ravesi has sex with Ken Cole in the afternoon. Early
    evening, she has sex with her husband.
    
    Since Nicole is a fraternal twin, two of Debra's eggs were fertilized
    by different sperm (one from Ken Cole and one from her husband).
    
    After the twins are born, DNA analysis is done, proving that Ken is
    Nicole's father, while her husband is the twin boy's father.
    
    Thus, Ken's obsession with Nicole only.
    
      Alan

    >Really?  A twin?

     I think I heard this on the local news (channel 5, Boston).  This
     was reported sometime ago when the story initially broke, so I can't
     remember the details... it's interesting though that no mention
     of her twin has been made in more recent news stories.  Does anyone
     else remember hearing/reading this?

     -Debi

    Actually, Alan, that was my first thought - fraternal twins by
    different fathers.  It's a stretch, but not an impossibility.
    Would it be possible though for Debra, (and in turn, Cole), to actually 
    know that her twins had separate fathers and further, which man fathered 
    which twin?  They don't routinely do genetic studies on newborn twins, 
    even fraternal ones, do they?  So I don't think the hospital staff would 
    have been alerted to anything unusual.  Would the average person 
    understand this concept such that Debra might have suspected it and
    asked a doctor to do some genetic confirmations?
    
    I suppose if she suspected Ken had anything to do with fathering her 
    twins, she could have had them secretly tested, expecting they'd both be 
    her husband's or both be Ken's and instead got a big surprise.  That 
    would be really bizarre! 
    
    

    
    
    Well then if Ken is her real father, then what he did would not
    be considered kidnapping.  
    
    Interesting!!

    re: .11 (Michele)
    
    I think it would still be kidnapping because Cole would not
    be considered the legal parent.
    
    Steve

        Oops...

	I called Channel 5 and they said that Nicole was *DEFINITELY* not
        a twin!

	The concept about fathering the fraternal twin was interesting 
        though...   

        -Debi

well, I'd _heard_ something about a twin brother, but the family photo on last
night's news led me to believe that the younger boy was older than Nicole.

I, too, have been baffled that Nicole's parents always seemed so rock-solid sure
that she would be perfectly safe, happy, and well cared for by a man that _they_
consistently described as sick and obsessive -- to the extent of gaining a
restraining order.

  Ann

    
    	It's considered kidnapping if the non-custodial parent takes the
    	child away (even if this parent actually *had* custody when the
    	event occurred.)
    
    	There have been cases where custodial parents (Mothers) have gone
    	away with children, only to be hunted down by the law because
    	the non-custodial parents went to court to claim custody by virtue
    	of the fact that the custodial parents were not there to contest.
    

    Regarding kidnapping, my wife and I were talking about this last
    night.
    
    Is kidnapping considered a "crime", only if the person kidnapped -
    or in the case of a minor, the kinappee's parent(s) - files charges?
    
    If Nicole's parents choose not to have Cole prosecuted, does the
    state still have a "compelling interest" in bringing Cole to trial?
    
      Alan
                              

    May I strongly suggest that speculating on the sex life of the
    persons involved is really none of our business and not appropriate.
    
    Thankyou
    
    Bonnie J

    re: .16 (Alan)
    
    Hmm. . .interesting thought, Alan.  I'd speculate that someone
    would have to file charges at some point in order for it to be
    a crime.  Otherwise mightn't a ride on a bus be considered
    kidnapping (I know, I know. . .in some cities it amounts to
    kidnapping or at least some form of torture anyway, but that's 
    a different story).  It seems to me that the entire premise of
    kidnapping rests on the question of volition.
    
    In terms of the Cole case, I suspect that if the Ravesis chose to 
    drop the charges, Cole would still be prosecuted under federal law 
    (once state lines are crossed, the FBI gets into the act).  
    
    Steve

    In Massachusetts, where this is has taken place, the law states that
    all children born to a married woman are automatically assumed to
    belong to her husband and given that legal status - even if the woman
    was not married at the time of conception.  (Interesting in light of
    the current hoo-ha over 'when life begins' and the implications for
    this case in considering a human being (and its heritage) to begin at 
    conception.  According to Mass law, only birth is considered to be 
    relevant.  I like it.)
    
    If Ken turns out to be the biological father, that may complicate
    things but the charge of kidnapping will not be dropped because of it.
    Nicole is legally considered to be the Ravesi's child.
    

    In British-American  common law, there is a strong "presumption of
    legitimacy",  so  any time a married woman has a child, that child
    is  presumed  legitimate, even if she hasn't seen the husband in a
    year  (I  know of one such case). If the woman is married when the
    child  is  born, the child is legitimate and the "legal" father is
    the husband. I believe that if she was married 9 months before the
    birth,  the  child  is  also  legitimate, but I don't know who the
    "legal" father is.

    So legally,  Nicole is legitimate, and the mother's husband is her
    father.

--David

    Re: .19
    
    Sandy, I think you didn't understand my point about the kidnapping
    charges.
    
    I understand that *legally* Mr. Ravesi (does anybody remember his
    first name) is Nicole's father.
    
    My question was, what if the Ravesis do not choose to prosecute?
    
    To Steve M.: Just because the FBI gets involved, does that mean 
    automatic prosecution?
    
      Alan     

    (Polly, correct me if I'm wrong on this)
    
    Kidnapping is a felony, and felony charges and prosecutions are
    undertaken by and on behalf of the state itself.   A victim can bring,
    press, or drop _civil_ charges, but not criminal charges; in some
    sense, once a felony is presumed to have taken place, the actual victim
    is almost irrelevant except as a witness.
    
    						=maggie

    may I again say that speculating on the parentage of the little
    girl is in very poor taste.
    
    thanks
    
    bonnie j

    Little Nicole is so pretty with her big brown eyes and her curly hair.
    She looks just like Mr. Ravisi. Did anyone notice?
    
    I'm glad she's home. I prayed for her.
    
    KAte

    re: .21 (Alan)
    
    As I understand it, the federal prosecution would be, for all
    intents and purposes, automatic.  Once the state lines are 
    crossed in commission of a felony, the federal statutes go
    into effect.  As Maggie said, in some sense the individual
    victim becomes irrelevent except as a witness.  In the sense
    that the kidnapping charge would have been automatically lodged,
    the prosecution is automatic.  The manner in which the case is
    prosecuted, however, would not necessarily be so clear cut.
    
    As in all jurisdictions I'm aware of, there's some latitude
    in the prosection of any given federal case.  For example, the
    Attorney General's office might decide that a particular 
    case is so weak as to be unwinnable if taken to court.  Or
    relatively minor federal charges may be dismissed in the face
    of conviction on far more serious charges at the state level.  
    And, of course, plea and/or sentence bargaining options also
    exist at the federal level.  I believe that it's in this latter
    case where the Ravesi's feelings may carry the most weight.
    
    Steve

    Well, that might be why she was named Ni*cole* for Kevin Cole...???

    Gail
    
    I'm sorry to pick on you in particular, but please stop this
    sort of speculation.
    
    and given that Nicole is 5 and her family only met Kevin Cole
    in 1988 this discussion is moot anyway.
    
    Bonnie J

    Bonnie..

    Isn't this what a "normal" topic of discussion in a "normal" conference
    is all about, speculation, discovery, talk, etc...

    If you are going to single me out, which you did BTW, then I'm going to
    come out punching so to speak.  

    I happen to think exactly what I wrote, if you have an opinion that is
    not of the same, then its your right to ask me why I think that, and to
    counter with facts. 

    The paper tonight said they DID in fact know each other 5 years ago, so
    it does indeed leave for speculation. Mr. Cole Sr., has stated that
    there are aspects of this case, that when they come out, will leave
    little doubt as to why Kevin did what he did.

    I'm sorry if some people have opinions that differ from yours, I'm also
    sorry to see that you have tried to stop what is a normal topic in a
    normal discussion. For once, its not two people fighting and screaming
    at each other. Please think about that...

    Gale

    Gale,
    
    I've said several times and you chose to ignore those comments
    that speculating on the private sex lives of the persons involved
    isn't appropriate.
    
    You happened to be the first person to enter a note ignoring my
    earlier comment.
    
    It has nothing to do with the sort of discussion be it normal or
    not.
    
    Bonnie J

    Bonnie - I disagree, just because one person says not to talk about
    what the rest of the USA is talking about, doesn't mean every
    womannoter should ignore what may turn out to be more than speculation.
    
    I don't know anyone who has that type of power - sorry.

    Gale,
    
    I singled you out because you were the first person to enter
    a note on a subject that I had twice cautioned the file members
    was inappropriate.
    
    Anyone who had done so would have gotten the same appology and
    for singling them out and the same repeat caution.
    
    Were someone to copy the sort of speculation that has been going
    on here out of the file and send it to the family in question
    they could well sue DEC for it.
    
    again I repeat, it is not appropriate conversation to speculate
    on the sex lives of the people involved.
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod
    
    
    p.s. and since your note was entered before mine, I've deleted this
    to reply to your last comment..
    
    Gale it doesn't matter what the rest of the USofA is specualting
    about..
    
    it is still inappropriate to discuss the personal sex lives
    of individuals on Digital resources. period.

    >again I repeat, it is not appropriate conversation to speculate
    >on the sex lives of the people involved.
         ^ 
    This | is different than this |
                                  v
    
    >Gale it doesn't matter what the rest of the USofA is specualting
    >about..
    >
    >it is still inappropriate to discuss the personal sex lives
    >of individuals on Digital resources. period.

    The first strikes me as your personal opinion, and I would
    argue with you -- speculation, in this case, would not be
    inappropriate -- if that were your only position.
    
    The second, however, strikes me as a prudent statement from
    a moderator, and I concur.
    
    					andrew

    andrew,
    
    as a moderator I feel that simple courtesy would require that we
    not speculate on the personal lives of the members of Nicole's
    family.
    
    I seriously doubt that any of us would appreciate such speculation
    were something similar �to have happend to us.
    
    I feel I may have over reacted in saying that this might be something
    the company could get sued for...and I appologise...
    
    but in the absence of anything in the news other than this family
    had their little girl kidnapped, I think that randoms speculations
    are inappropriate and discourteous.
    
    Bonnie J

    Another piece of legal trivia:
    
    There is a legal principle known as Lord Mansfield's Rule which
    prohibits either spouse from testifying as to whether the husband
    had access to the wife at the time of conception.  Some states
    have abandoned this principle; however, it still stands in most of
    the U.S.

     What I found strange was the reaction of the little girl once she
    was returned home and in the arms of her mother.
    
    Mother's Question:  "Are you happy to see me?"
    
    Nicole's Response:  ________________
    
    M. Q.:  "Are you happy to be back home"?
    
    Nicole A:  ______________________
    
    M. Q.:  "Are you confused?  Have you been on vacation?"
    
    Nicole A:  Yes.
    
    Maybe Nicole is only 5.  However how did the mother know to ask
    her if she had been on "vacation"?  Nicole did not seem to be thrilled
    to be back home with the 'family'.  A five year old, no matter how
    close she is to a friend, would (my own opinion) have rushed into
    her family's arms and been exstatic.  Not so in this case.
    
    Am I the only one who sees this as strange?
    
    Observer
    

    Was it Wommanotes-V1 or -V2 that had the topic about gossip and how
    terrible it is to be the target of vicious rumors?  
    
    Cheryl

    Re .37, yes, but if this "vicious rumor" is true, it could be the
    explanation for some pretty weird behavior on Ken Cole's part. 
    I tend to think that sort of justified the speculation in this case.
    
    Lorna
    

    Bonnie, I'm not sure why this seems to have triggered one of
    your hot buttons.
    
    In fact, the Ravesis and the Coles have entered the "public
    domain", especially after their appearances on "America's Most
    Wanted." 
    
    As such, speculation about their sexual lives may not be, I believe, 
    any more inappropriate, or invasive, than discussions about D.C. Mayor's 
    Marion Barry's pecadilloes.
    
      Alan

    Gee, Bon, I think it's only human nature to wonder whether or not Ken
    is Nicole's bio father.  Even the press came right out and asked the
    Ravesis that!  What's the big deal?  No one's talking about who was on
    top or who got tied up or anything.  I think it's an innocent
    discussion on the possible reasons why this guy would have kidnapped
    Nicole.  That parentage involves sex means parentage cannot be
    discussed?  How about birth control?  (That presumes heterosexual sex
    is taking place and that's a "speculation on someone's sex life", isn't
    it?)  How about makeup?  Well, that does imply that a woman is looking
    to attract, doesn't it?
    
    Let's not get too ridiculous with this "new morality" and all.  I think
    it's even ridiculous to refer to this guy as "The Alleged Abductor".  I
    see a poem in that one.  He was SEEN taking the girl, he was FOUND with
    the girl, but we cannot call him a kidnapper until a jury does.  Excuse
    me, but is it really getting so the citizens of the US of A are no
    longer allowed to trust their eyes and ears?  Nothing exists unless a 
    jury SAYS it exists?  A friend and I were discussing this over
    lunch on Saturday and I said that the restaurant couldn't really force 
    me to pay for my lunch because even though they may have heard me order, 
    and even though I may have been seen receiving and diving into my lunch,
    aren't I really just an "alleged" customer until a jury decides?  Or is
    someone only "alleged" if they can find a defense lawyer to side with
    them?  This can really get ridiculous.  But that's a side topic.  More to 
    the point, I really think that speculating that Cole may be the kid's 
    father is a far cry from discussing the sex life of Debra Ravesi or
    anyone else.
    
    I think her husband's name is Frank, by the way, and they don't have 2
    boys, they have 1 boy and 2 girls.
    
    And now that I've read more since I started this topic, I'm wondering
    about some possible weirdness in the Ravesi family from which Cole may
    have believed he was rescuing Nicole.  Everyone involved seems to claim to 
    know why he took her and they were all confident it wasn't pedophilia, 
    kiddie porn, or anything else that might bring her harm.  And everyone 
    involved has admitted that "the whole story" is still unknown.
    
    So can I speculate?  Any prospective jurors in the audience? I don't
    want to be unfair to the lawyers, here!  
    
    I'm beginning to wonder if they're um, "extremists" of some sort,
    possibly with "religious" overtones?  Uh, a "different" kind of
    religion that begins with "S"?  Is that ok?  Will this prevent all
    the lawyers involved from benefitting from ambiguity and secrecy?
    It really is because of lawyers, (and their wallets), that we have to
    refer to Ken Cole as "The Alleged Abductor".  Anything else would make
    life a little more difficult for the defense lawyer(s) and hey, even
    defense lawyers deserve a fair chance to earn some money from this, no?
    
    So to hell with Nicole and the guy who was seen kidnapping her.  None
    of that may have actually happened, you know!  Let's make sure the lawyers 
    have a decent chance to get what they can from this trial without
    having reality blow it for them.  So everyone, please repeat after me - 
    "Nicole was NOT abducted and certainly not by Ken Cole no matter HOW many
    people saw Ken abduct Nicole.  It didn't happen until a jury says so."  
    ("It isn't Hanes until *I* say it's Hanes!")  ;-)
    
    Thank you.  Now go back to your work, all of you, and stop talking about
    this.
    
    This system stinks.

    In that account, a few replies back, of the conversation between Nicole
    and her mother, who deleted Nicole's response?  The newspaper?  Why?
    Might truth and reality hamper "justice"?
    
    I've been dying to know why everyone doesn't just ask Nicole what she
    thinks.  But now I know.  The defense lawyer needs the smokescreen of
    silence and ambiguity if he/she hopes to make any money, (and get any
    glory), from this at all.  Let's drag the family, and poor Nicole,
    especially, through this as long as possible since everyone knows
    lawyers are paid by the hour.
    
    And remember, I didn't say this until a jury SAYS I did!  My lips are 
    sealed!  :-|

    RE: .41

    no one deleted it, she just didn't answer....  was very tight lipped...
    Geezz.. I for one can hardly wait until the truth comes out in the
    trial, then maybe we might be granted the all-mighty permission to talk
    about it then...  until then, maybe I'll go to soapbox 2 - on GIBNEY::
    - it seems to be the only place that one can maybe talk about what
    might end up being the truth...

    Until then, I'll continue to read the papers, and talk to people at work
    on DEC floors, about the parentage, hey maybe DEC can get sued if
    everyone at work talks about it too huh?

    On being a public figure..  Bonnie, once a person has become a public
    figure, you are by law allowed to talk about their sex lives. Period.
    End of discussion.. if you want the legal briefs to back it up, I'll be
    more than happy to type them in for you.

    Meanwhile, since I've already given my opinion, I won't force the
    issue. 

	As for talking about the sex lives of public people, it is more
	common courtesy rather than law that limits it in individuals.

	And as to whether or not Kevin Cole is a kidnapper remains to
	be seen and has little to do with lawyers.  It has more to do
	with the old "innocent until proven guilty" idea.  Did you ever
	wonder if maybe there was not a crime committed at all???

	Do you know how to spell - BOOK - MONEY - TV MOVIE - STORY??

	I tend to ignore this story on the whole and will wait for 
	the TV version which will have a lot more "stuff" in it.

	_peggy

    BTW: for anyone who wants to go read it, 58.571 in PEAR::SOAPBOX adds a 
    LOT(!!!) of insight already into this case...
    
    

    Well, unless any of the other moderators have a problem with this,
    feel free to talk as you wish on the subject. I still question the
    appropriateness, but as Alan pointed out, they did make themselves
    public figures  by agreeing to go on "Most Wanted".
    
    I just wonder if any of us had a child kidnapped or something similar
    that was out of our control, if we'd appreciate the same type of
    speculation about our own lives.  
    
    But that's not my job as a moderator to do something about.
    
    Bonnie

    Speaking in my thoroughly non-mod status, I can't help but be reminded
    of all the net-gossip and speculation about the Stuart case...
    
    Ray

    There are some solid concrete facts I would like to share here and
    very seriously;
    
    First and foremost we ALL know that we will NEVER know the facts
    or the truth.  That will remain with Nicole and Cole and their
    respective families.
    
    Secondly, what makes anyone think that a jury's conclusion is absolute?
    Since when are their decisions concrete truths?  The legal system
    in this country leaves a LOT to be desired.  The only ones that
    ever make out are the attorneys. This is TRUTH!
    
    I was personally involved in a case where three children were being
    battered by their father.  It took 6-1/2 years to remove those children
    from the home because there wasn't enough concrete evidence according
    to the opposing lawyer and sadly the opinion of the judge as well. There
    were eye witnesses, reports from various psychiatrists, dental reports,
    medical reports, and to top it all off daddy was an alcoholic. 
    The daughter (also eldest of the 3) finally came forward and began
    to 'talk'.  Her stories were 10 times worse than we ever imagined.
    She was forced to go to court and testify, however, 'daddy' was
    so frightened to appear in court and 'loose face' that he agreed
    to settle everything out of court.  After all daddy was a prominent
    business man who got custody of his children through dirty pool
    during the divorce. The courts let this case drag on and on and
    on.  But I wouldn't give up for anything.  I was the target for
    gossip, ridicule, threats, you name it.  But I kept going till I
    won, which I did. The pain is beyond anything you can imagine but
    sometimes you just have to do what you have to do for those you
    love, you see I was the childrens mother.
    
    It's a fact of life that we speculate about other people's lives,
    especially if they are in the limelight.  However, we DO NOT have
    the right, nor should we have the inclination to JUDGE them. We
    never know all the facts, nor do we have to. 
    
    Nicole and her parents will do what they have to do.  Cole and his
    family as well. I pray that they all survive this mess and are able
    to go on with their lives. The most important thing here is that
    Nicole was not abused (physically or sexually), she was nor murdered
    and she has been returned home. May they all heal.
    
    I did not mean to get sentimental here only factual. Nightmares
    die a hard death.
    
    Live and let live.
    
    Courtroom justice?

    I don't know, I'm not willing to accept that we will "never know"
    all the facts.  Court proceedings are a matter of public record and you
    can bet one lawyer or the other is going to squeeze every fact out to
    support his/her side.
    
    Innocent until "proven" guilty?  That's just what I mean.  Seeing that
    guy take the girl would be proof enough for me.  Knowing that he was
    found with her, (especially through a positive identification from
    "just" a citizen trusting his OWN eyes!), is doubly proof enough for
    me.  How come the guy in the trailer park's eyes are "good enough" for
    the FBI to move in but ours, (meaning the people who saw him take her),
    are not "good enough" for the rest of us to believe it was him?
    
    Because in the former case, the authorities get what they want - the
    "alleged abductor".  In the latter case, the lawyers haven't YET gotten
    what they want.  We're only protecting the lawyers' interests, folks.
    He WAS "proven" guilty when he was seen abducting a little girl that does
    not legally belong to him.  And if he wasn't then, he certainly WAS
    when the trailer park owner said he thought the guy was in his trailer
    with her and the FBI came, saw and agreed!  I don't know what more 
    "proof" YOU need, but I know what more proof the "lucky" defense laywer
    needs - ambiguity and uncertainty.  And we as "spectators" in this
    debacle are pretty much expected to look the other way and allow the
    creation of ambiguity and uncertainty - the arena in which the lawyers
    play.
    
    I think there should be no lawyers at all - just Ken and his family, 
    Nicole and hers, speaking their respective pieces for the judge and jury 
    NOT to determine guilt, but to examine his motives, assess the damage,
    (if any), to the little girl and determine appropriate restitution to
    the legal parents and to society.  Everything else is just a circus -
    just a chance for some lawyers to get a little experience in courtroom
    drama and hopefully a little money and glory.  It's a legal joust and
    the parties involved have only created the opportunity for it.  There's
    a good spinoff topic - lawyers' consciences and the slimeballs who
    exist by turning obvious guilt into vagueness and confusion. The better
    they do that, the better lawyer, no?

    I think the "alleged" part is over whether he really took the girl
    against the parents wishes. No one seems to argue about the fact that
    he had her. From what I've read here the parents didn't seem too
    worried. liesl

       The laundry will get washed in open court only if there is a
       trial; there will be a trial only if the case isn't plea-
       bargained.  If something as weird as the speculation is in fact
       true (and it's not as if the Ravesis give the image of being an
       overly functiuonal family), then I'd bet that the DA wouldn't want
       to get involved with a court trial and Cole will walk.
       Incidentally, in the unlikely event that the case does come to
       trial, keep this in mind: At the trial, the Commonwealth of
       Massachusetts will have legal representation, Kenneth Cole will
       have legal representation, and Nicole Ravesi will _not_ have legal
       representation.
       
       --Mr Topaz
       
       p.s.: The contretemps involving the Commoderator showed the
       latter's sensitivity to good taste in suggesting that certain
       speculation would best be left unmade as well as her questionable
       judgment in improperly using her position of authority by
       suggesting that the unseemly speculation represents a threat to
       the company. 
       

    RE the p.s. in .51

    It might be instructive to see that sentence diagrammed.

       re .52:
       
       > It might be instructive to see that sentence diagrammed.
       
       The diagram, very much like the sentence construction itself,
       would resemble a rotten fish.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    Why won't Nicole have legal representation?  I don't understand.  Is it
    because "everybody knows" her side already - that she was abducted?
    Then what's the trial for?  Just to see if Cole can find a lawyer
    good enough to make the sure, unsure and to make reality unreal?
    Why isn't the first hour of the first day in court spent simply asking
    the 2 eyewitnesses what they saw?
    
    "Did you see anyone take your sister?"
    
    "Yes - that man over there took her"
    
    "Are you pointing to Ken Cole?"
    
    "Yes.  He took her"
    
    "I rest my case.  Where do ya wanna have lunch?" 

    Out here in Windy City Land, there hasn't been anything on the news. 
    What has been happening to that poor little girl?
    
    Jackie  :-)
    

re.55

Nicole will not be represented because she is not a party to the case of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Kenneth Cole.  In criminal proceedings the
state has an interest and the accused has an interest.  In this case, Nicole is/
or would be a witness against/for the accused.

Should the Ravesis file for a civil action as well, then Nicole could have
representation in the case of Ravesi v.Cole.

    
    	RE: .55
    
    	Sandy, I really like your swift style of justice!! It's just
    	too bad we didn't have this in the Stuart case, we could have
    	maybe prevented Mr. Stuart from being found out and he'd still
    	be alive today and that black man would be sitting in jail for
    	life, because after all Mr. Stuart said he saw this man shoot
    	his wife. Hey, he saw it, why do we need lawyers to muddy things
    	up right?
    
    	G_B

    re: -1  Nope, because that would be only ONE witness.  Before I put
    that in, I thought about how many people saw him take her.  One
    wouldn't have been enough for me.  And further, the witnesses are
    children, who in my opinion, aren't sophisticated enough to understand
    the implications and lie convincingly.  Then we have Bob Allen, who
    rented the trailer to them, we have Lisa Allen, (no relation), who,
    with her 3 children befriended them, fed them and clothed Nicole, and
    the woman who owned the restaurant where Cole shucked oysters for a day
    or 2 before his capture.  Now if you just trot all these people in, one
    after the other, and then sit Ken down and say, "Well, what have you
    got to say for yourself?", I just don't see what more needs to be done.
    
    And don't forget that in the Stuart case, EVEN if my "swift justice"
    prevailed, the brother came forward to protect the innocent accused.
    Big and nasty lies are just not easy to maintain over the long haul.
    
    As for the update, Nicole is back home and boy, her siblings must be
    getting awfully jealous at all the attention she's getting.  Private
    jets, limousines, tv people, not to mention the "adventure" she had.
    
    The Ravesis have stated that the problem was in letting "anyone" get
    too close to the family and that they will never let anyone get that
    close again.  So Cole isn't unique in their minds?  Perhaps they think
    that "anyone", on getting "close enough" to the situation would
    probably consider doing the same thing?  Why?  What's going on there?
    What are they protecting?

    
    
    RE .55
    I believe that Nicole's parents may choose to have representation
    for Nicole just to protect her from unreasonable prosecution (gosh
    could that happen from in this day and age?).  At least that is
    how it happens here in NH.
    
    I think I spent too many years working for attorneys. Five to be
    exact. I still hold my ground that we will NEVER know the facts.
    Attorneys are interested in $$$ and not necessarily the truth. Stories
    get so twisted and the innocent are made to look so guilty. The
    biggest reason I left law was it was getting harder and harder to
    get a reasonable nights sleep. They are excellent at loop holes
    that make the 'black hole' look like a mouse trap. What will come
    in court will be interesting, how the media interprets it even more
    so. 
    
    This is like a soap opera; however, these people get hurt.
    
    Courtroom justice?  (You must be kidding!)
    

    
    	RE: .60
    
    >>	Courtroom justice  (you must be kidding?)
    
    	Stinks doesn't it!!  Still all in all, I think it's still the best
    	system going today. Atleast in our system (US) you do have a right to
    	legal representation. There are alot of other places in this world
    	where the state says your guilty and they don't have to prove it,
    	it's up to you to prove them wrong and even without a lawyer to
    	aid you. The only lawyers are the ones working for the state to
    	have you put away.
    
    	I dislike lawyers as much as anyone, but tell me you'd rather
    	go into court without one and only be able to tell your side
    	and not question the others. That's the justice you get in other
    	places. You say "I'm not guilty" and that's it, you can't question
    	your accusers yet they (the state) can you.
    
    	G_B
    

    The lawyer's role is not to find truth, but to represent his or her
    client.  The prosecutor's role is not to find truth, but to represent
    the State.  It is the jury's role to find the facts of the case out of
    the evidence presented.  In a non-jury trial, that role falls to the
    judge.  Why do so many people expect a lawyer to present some objective
    truth?  That's why we have an adversarial, two-party system.
    
    my .02,
    Marge

    So basically, it's a game of charades that a random group of 
    citizens, (the jurors), gets to play with the lawyers, yes?  
    (Sounds like..... sounds like.... the truth??)  Truth be damned, 
    victims be damned - we want to play this little game here.  Isn't 
    that nice.
    
    Why not a system where every accused faces their accuser and has equal
    time to grill them back?  You want to accuse, you'd better be prepared
    to back up those charges!  Too easy?  No money or glory involved, only
    justice and fairness for the poor taxpaying slobs?  Nah, what kind of
    goal is that?  That was the old days when the government was for the 
    people.  This is the 90s folks and the people are now just the machine
    that generates the opportunities for money and glory for those who've 
    managed to claw their way out of mere "peoplehood" into entitlement.  
    There's much more at stake now than just what happened to this little 
    girl and what should be done about it.  Maybe all the players should 
    genuflect before the proceedings begin, sort of like the national 
    anthem before sporting events:
    
    "All rise!"
    
    "Nicole Ravesi and Ken Cole, we offer you our heartfelt thanks, (in the
    name of some deity to give it weight and seriousness), for this
    wonderful opportunity to test the benefits of having law schools and 
    the relative effectiveness of those who graduate from them.  We honor
    these brave souls for the test before them and offer you our sincere 
    hope that you will be satisfied with the outcome but if your are not, 
    we offer you the opportunity to initiate a second game, (and hope we're 
    lucky enough that it takes place here!), such that we CAN have the 
    opportunity to find out who the best lawyers are, who has the most
    money, the most influence, etc.  We regret any inconvenience this may 
    cause you or your family."  
    
    "Let the games begin!"  (Trumpet flourish)
    
    "Nicole, why did you leave the car that day when your mother was still
    working?  Whom did you go with, where did you go and why?"  (Offers a
    wide smile to the opponents and a gasp goes up from the crowd)
    
    "Your Honor, I object!  That would end the game right here and now and
    I haven't even had MY turn yet!"  (Sits back down angrily and sulks.  
    The crowd holds its collective breath)
    
    "Sustained!  Please watch your line of questioning, Counselor." (and
    the crowd relaxes and orders a few pizzas and pitchers from the 
    courtwench on duty.)

    Maybe I've been watching too much Twin Peaks, but I think there's
    more to this situation than meets the eye. And I wonder if some
    of it isn't downright odd.
    
    --DE
    

    Re: .63
    
    It's so sad but how right you are!  The more money, influence, power
    (whatever that may mean these days) the more your attorney loves
    you and can become ingenuous at building a case. 
    
    The games the attorneys play . . . .  at the expense of Nicole,
    Cole, society (our courts are backed up enough, that significant
    details can be forgotten or oversighted drastically changing the
    outcome of many cases) and it just goes on, and on, and on.
    
    Wish I had more solutions than criticism.   
   
    This issue sure has raised a great deal of interesting food for
    thought. I in particular have enjoyed reading ALL the different
    points of view a great deal. 
    
    On a lighter note . . .  we are fortunate to be able to express
    ourselves so openly . . . Only in America.
    
    Courtroom Justice?
     

    I like reading all of the legal stuff.....but what's going on with Ken
    & Nicole?  No news out this way....what's the update?
    
    Jackie
    

    Bail has been denied Ken Cole.  The judge stated that Ken's obsession
    with Nicole is so great that he feels Ken would ignore the law to get
    to her again.  Ken's parents were prepared to put up their home to help
    bail him out.  
    
    The news also read parts of letters Ken had written to Nicole saying
    that he'll find her wherever she was and when he grows older he'd marry
    her and they'll live in that pink house she wants..... Ken's mother
    found this letter in Ken's room.  Also had a letter to Ken from Mrs. Ravesi 
    saying," you can have my friendship, you can have my daughter but you can't 
    have my heart. "
    
    I don't really think Ken's Nicole's father.  I think that Ken felt
    Nicole was being abused by her parents and he feels he was saving her
    from that.  I read in the paper early on in this case where it said Ken
    was dismissed from his past job (bus driver also) because he suspected
    a child was being physically abused and Ken turned the parents in. 
    Seeing the Ravesi's on tv as a family isn't very comforting.  They seem
    so distant.
    
    IMO
    Anna
    
    
    

       re .62:
       
       > The prosecutor's role is not to find truth, but to represent the
       > State.  
       
       It's a sad and cynical state that has been reached: we accept
       willingly that the role of the State (that is, the People) in
       legal proceedings is to do something other than find and represent
       the truth.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    RE: .70
    
    No offense, Herb, but just because you read it in the Globe doesn't
    mean it's a fact!  Typos happen.  I heard Ken's mother say that he's
    been "friends" with Mrs. Ravesi since he was 19 - that's 5 years.
    
    Susan