Conference back40::soapbox

    We watched 'Turning Point' tonight about the guy who was charged
    with raping and beating two girls (16 years old and 17 years old)
    in two incidents in 1986 that were four days apart.

    The two women still do not know each other's identities, but their
    stories were very similar.  In both cases, Alex Kelly offered them
    rides home, then pulled over to a dark place where he forced them
    into the back seat of his car where he beat and raped them.  He
    threatened both girls (one with murder and one with a second rape)
    if they told anyone what happened.

    Shortly before the trial was to begin in early 1987, Alex Kelly
    fled to Europe.  His wealthy parents supported him over the years
    (he spent most of him time in resorts, living the high life.)
    His parents visited him in Europe four times.

    They almost caught him twice in Europe, but he finally turned 
    himself in to police in Switzerland.  (His 10 year passport
    was going to run out, and the FBI had evidence that his parents
    had helped him.)

    Alex Kelly had a record as a juvenile (for committing burglaries
    of neighbors in his rich community) a year or so before the rapes.
    Some of the robberies netted as much as $60,000 in jewels which
    went to pay for his drug habit at the time.

    He was sentenced to over 30 months in jail, but after his drug
    rehab, he convinced the judge that he was completely changed
    (and dedicated to schoolwork, etc.) so he got out of jail after 
    only two months or so.  He did very well in school and sports, 
    but a year or so later, he was charged with the two brutal rapes.

    This guy describes himself as a victim - somehow, these two girls
    managed to come up with the same story (and both beat themselves
    up, supposedly) without knowing each other.   He spent 8 scared
    years in Europe.  A man who spent three winters in the same
    resort with him has described him as living a very carefree 
    vacation-type life in Europe.  Alex's own letters to his parents
    say 'I wish I could live like this forever.'  When Alex was
    extradited back to the States, he grinned more than the Menendez
    brothers at the attention.

    Alex Kelly's lawyer is trying very hard to have the two rapes tried
    separately (they were originally set to be tried in the same case).
    He has stated that he plans to put the victims on trial.  (What else
    is new.)

    The PR campaign for the accused has already started for this new
    'high profile' case.

    Our legal system has become like an election.  If the accused is
    famous, popular or attractive and can afford 'media star' lawyers,
    he can 'campaign' for an acquittal.  It's pretty sickening, IMO,
    especially since the young women who were raped and beaten are not
    in a position to campaign for their charges.
    
    My hope is that they will keep the two rape charges in the same
    trial, as they had originally ruled in this case.  Then let the
    young women tell their stories and show the photographs of their
    injuries at his hands to the same jury (so they can see the
    similarities in the two incidents.)

    By the way, Alex Kelly's parents belligerently claim that almost
    any parents would help hide their kid from this kind of trouble.

    Their older son died from a drug overdose in 1991, so these
    rich parents haven't had the best luck with their efforts to
    help their kids, so far.

    The FBI hasn't decided yet whether they will be charged for
    helping Alex stay on the run from the law.

    A man in Denver murdered a woman (and paralyzed a female motorist
    who had tried to help the woman escape from this man), and this
    man's father DID turn him in to police.  The man came home with
    blood on his clothes and his brother called their father (who
    is a police officer.)  The father notified authorities who
    arrested the man and charged him with murder and attempted murder.

    More recently, the Unabomber's family turned him in.  Some families
    do the responsible thing, obviously.

    
    
    Re:7784
    
     Suzanne, don't you think you should get all the FACTs not just a media
    broadcast before you convict someone? I thought you said something
    about beliving in the justice system....
    
    I saw the same show but you know the media wasn't worry about a trail
    it was worried about ratings.
    
    Dave

    >>  In both cases, Alex Kelly offered them rides home, then pulled
    over to a dark place where he forced them into the back seat of his
    car where he beat and raped them.  He threatened both girls (one
    with murder and one with a second rape) if they told anyone what
    happened.
    
    Did you forget the word *allegedly*?

>   By the way, Alex Kelly's parents belligerently claim that almost
>    any parents would help hide their kid from this kind of trouble.
    
    
    
    	I take it you disagree?
    
    

     I watched Turning Point last night, too.
    
     The fact that both victims' stories are very similar seems
    incriminating. The defense seems poised to claim the girls are lying.
    It seems difficult to imagine their motivation to lie unless they were
    after money or perhaps unless they felt remorse after having consented
    to sex with Kelly. It will be interesting to see the physical evidence,
    especially if it gives evidence of nonconsentual sex. I wonder how the
    defense will explain it away.
    
    >This guy describes himself as a victim 
    
     If, in fact, he did not commit the crimes, he is being victimized by
    the justice system. Unless you've ever been falsely accused and forced
    to go into hock to defend yourself from the charges, it may be
    difficult to understand just how perverted the justice system can be
    and just how easily one can be victimized.
    
     Frankly, I don't understand the judge's ruling to hold both trials
    simultaneously. The two crimes are separate, despite their similarity.
    If the crimes were tried separately, the prosecution would be enjoined
    from using the first trial as evidence of guilt of the second crime. It
    could only be used as evidence of a pattern of conduct. It seems that
    trying both crimes together is prejudicial since there's no way for the
    jury to ignore attempts by the prosecution to link the two crimes
    regardless of the levels of evidence supporting each charge. If the
    facts support a finding of guilty, they will certainly support a
    finding of guilty with individual trials.
    
     Kelly seems very confident he will be acquitted. Given the reluctance
    of juries to convict "nice looking boys" of dastardly crimes
    particularly when it's "he said/she said" without much physical
    evidence, his confidence could be based on a false sense of security.
    However, it could also be based on facts which have not yet come to
    light. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. 
    
     Anybody from the Darien CT area have any idea when this will be coming
    to trial?

    I watched the show too and tend to think that Alex is not doing himself
    any favours by his attitude.  He may or may not be innocent, but the
    fact that he does act so arrogant and carefree almost makes me think he
    is putting on the performance of his life.  It must be such a nightmare
    to get caught up a system which seems to be changing to "guilty, until
    proven innocent".  I don't blame his parents for helping him - they
    obviously believe he is innocent (unlike the Unibomber case).  Alex has
    a high profile lawyer (forget his name, but I believe his most famous
    client was Klaus von Bulow (sp?))  This is another case that looks like
    it is going to be tried in the media, before it even gets to court.

    >This is another case that looks like it is going to be tried 
    >in the media, before it even gets to court.
    
     I'd change that to "tried _by_ the media." Kelly's attorney doesn't
    seem to care to try the case for the general populace. "I'm not going
    to try the case here" he said, to the assembled media.

     Z   It's pretty sickening, IMO,
     Z   especially since the young women who were raped and beaten are not
     Z   in a position to campaign for their charges.
    
    Suzanne, not to get into a rathole...but we can thank the Mario Cuomo's
    of the world...the Michael Dukakis' of the world for the dilemna we now
    face.  It was these touchy feeley governors who appointed the judges
    who honestly believed the social services sector of our society needed
    a boost in clients...hence we now have rapists and murderers walking
    the streets.   A heavy price we pay in fear of executing the wrong guy.
    
    -Jack

    RE: .6  The Doctah

    > Frankly, I don't understand the judge's ruling to hold both trials
    > simultaneously. The two crimes are separate, despite their similarity.
    > If the crimes were tried separately, the prosecution would be enjoined
    > from using the first trial as evidence of guilt of the second crime. It
    > could only be used as evidence of a pattern of conduct. 

    It's most common for people accused of multiple incidences of rape to
    be tried for all the charges at the same time.

    It's very, very difficult to get a conviction for rape in this country
    if the charge comes from only one victim.  Even in cases where the man 
    broke into the woman's house, it's common to claim that she *wanted* 
    to have sex with him. 

    A former Digital employee once described the rape trial she went through
    in college (where the perp was a total stranger who jumped out of the
    bushes at her and knocked her to the ground when she was on her way
    home from the college library.)  The defense attorney asked her if she'd
    had an orgasm during the rape (only I doubt he used that word in his
    question.)   She was able to identify him through police photos (taken
    when he was accused of other rapes) and they did convict him with the
    help of physical evidence, as I recall.

    Most rapes do not even make it to trial.  

    > It seems that trying both crimes together is prejudicial since there's 
    > no way for the jury to ignore attempts by the prosecution to link the 
    > two crimes regardless of the levels of evidence supporting each charge. 
    > If the facts support a finding of guilty, they will certainly support a
    > finding of guilty with individual trials.

    If the crimes are tried individually, it's 'her word against his'
    in each case.  He can claim that the individual woman beat herself
    up and accused him falsely because she regretted having sex with
    him.

    When two women independently describe the same rape M.O. from this
    guy, it's harder for the defense to say, "Gee, what a wild coincidence
    that these two women each decided to beat themselves up and claim rape
    because they regretted having sex with him.  They must have very
    similar imaginations about what Alex would say if he were a rapist."

    > Kelly seems very confident he will be acquitted. Given the reluctance
    > of juries to convict "nice looking boys" of dastardly crimes
    > particularly when it's "he said/she said" without much physical
    > evidence,

    If the cases are tried together, it will be "THEY SAID/he said",
    which would be a lot more difficult.

    When he asks "Why would I rape someone?", the prosecution will ask
    "Why would two women independently invent the same story about
    this man, four days apart?"

    RE: .9  Jack Martin

    >> It's pretty sickening, IMO,
    >> especially since the young women who were raped and beaten are not
    >> in a position to campaign for their charges.

    > It was these touchy feeley governors who appointed the judges
    > who honestly believed the social services sector of our society needed
    > a boost in clients...hence we now have rapists and murderers walking
    > the streets. 

    In this case, the accused comes a wealthy family.  The alleged rapist
    grew up in the lap of luxury (then lived the life of a jet setter in
    Europe while his parents supported his years on the run from the law.)
                     
    The parents now have their house on the line for Alex's million dollar
    bond so that the alleged rapist can continue to walk the streets as
    we speak.

    Which politicians do you blame when rich people rape or murder others?

    The Excuse?
    
    I seem to remember one high profile murder case, (again boy-child of
    wealthy parents) where the defense attorney said that "she liked rough
    sex," and the strangling was only a bungled attempt at asphyxia for
    erotic purposes, despite testimony that the two had been fighting
    earlier in the evening and that she was planning to break up with him.
    
    meg

    How about the liberal politician who appointed the liberal judge who
    should have held him without bail?

    >If the crimes are tried individually, it's 'her word against his'
    >in each case.  He can claim that the individual woman beat herself
    >up 
    
     That stretches believability.
    
    >If the cases are tried together, it will be "THEY SAID/he said",
    >which would be a lot more difficult.
    
     If the cases are tried together, the prejudicial effects of having two
    accusers can make the difference between conviction and acquittal if
    the remainder of both cases is insufficient to obtain a conviction on
    its own. That is problematic.
    
     Far be it from me to defend a rapist or any other criminal, but having
    seen closely the way that the justice system can unfairly treat
    defendants, I am wary of making the prosecution's job too easy. Let's
    just hope that the police did their work properly and that all relevant
    evidence makes it into court so they jury can make the most informed
    decision possible.

    >I seem to remember one high profile murder case, (again boy-child of
    >wealthy parents) where the defense attorney said that "she liked rough
    >sex," and the strangling was only a bungled attempt at asphyxia for
    >erotic purposes, 
    
     The defendant, as I recall, was the child of even wealthier parents.
    She also, according to a number of sources, did, in fact, enjoy rough
    sex. Whether or not that particular defendant intended to kill her is
    unknown and probably unknowable; he did, however, cop a plea.

    This story was profiled in DETAILS magazine a few months back.  As I
    recall, the story was relatively fair, but implied this guy did it. 
    From the pictures of him in Europe, it looked like he was having a good
    time. 
    
    D

    RE: .14  The Doctah

    >> If the crimes are tried individually, it's 'her word against his'
    >> in each case.  He can claim that the individual woman beat herself
    >> up 
    
    > That stretches believability.

    OJ claimed in his deposition for the Goldman-Brown civil suit that
    Nicole beat herself up.  (Perhaps Kelly's defense lawyer borrowed
    this from OJ.)

    >> If the cases are tried together, it will be "THEY SAID/he said",
    >> which would be a lot more difficult.
    
    > If the cases are tried together, the prejudicial effects of having two
    > accusers can make the difference between conviction and acquittal if
    > the remainder of both cases is insufficient to obtain a conviction on
    > its own. That is problematic.

    It's problematic that the crime of rape is extremely difficult to
    prove one-victim-at-a-time.  

    Alex will bat his eyelashes (the way he did on 'Turning Point' last
    night) and ask, "Why would I rape someone???"  

    When two women's independent stories describe precisely how he did
    it, the one-victim-at-a-time difficulties of convicting for the 
    crime of rape are offset by the multiple witnesses against him.

    As I said earlier, it's most common to charge someone with multiple
    counts of rape (with multiple victims) than to put someone on trial
    for each one individually.  In the case of some rapists, they could
    go to trial 20 or 30 times if the trials were held separately.

    > That stretches believability.

    >>OJ claimed in his deposition for the Goldman-Brown civil suit that
    >>Nicole beat herself up.  
    
     And you bought it?
    
    >It's problematic that the crime of rape is extremely difficult to
    >prove one-victim-at-a-time.  
    
     So we should just round up people with accusations to make and "get"
    the defendant whether or not any charge merits a conviction?
    
    >Alex will bat his eyelashes (the way he did on 'Turning Point' last
    >night) and ask, "Why would I rape someone???"  
    
     That is something the prosecution will need an answer for, regardless
    of the number of purported victims.
    
    >When two women's independent stories describe precisely how he did
    >it, the one-victim-at-a-time difficulties of convicting for the 
    >crime of rape are offset by the multiple witnesses against him.
    
     As are protections from inflammatory and prejudicial testimony. Not
    that you seem to be too terribly concerned by such inconveniences when
    the goal is CONVICTION at all costs.
    
    >As I said earlier, it's most common to charge someone with multiple
    >counts of rape (with multiple victims) 
    
     It's MOST common? What is the source of this statement? The SEC
    database?

    RE: .18  Mark Levesque
    
    >> It's problematic that the crime of rape is extremely difficult to
    >> prove one-victim-at-a-time.  
    
    > So we should just round up people with accusations to make and "get"
    > the defendant whether or not any charge merits a conviction?
    
    You'd rather a rapist go through 20 or 30 trials with the same defense:
    "Hey, I have no idea why this ONE WOMAN would say this about me.  We
    had a delightful hour of sex and she loved every minute of it, even
    though she certainly seems to like rough sex a lot more than I do."
    
    They could build rubber stamps for his indictment and acquittal
    papers, and send him on his way to rape 100 more women with their
    blessings.
    
    >> When two women's independent stories describe precisely how he did
    >> it, the one-victim-at-a-time difficulties of convicting for the 
    >> crime of rape are offset by the multiple witnesses against him.
    
    > As are protections from inflammatory and prejudicial testimony. Not
    > that you seem to be too terribly concerned by such inconveniences when
    > the goal is CONVICTION at all costs.
    
    It's a real problem in our system that the evidence of rape closely
    resembles the evidence of consented sex (even when the woman has
    been beaten in the process - aka, 'rough sex'.)
    
    Multiple victims describing the same M.O. and the same threats
    independently is the only fair way to try a crime which has such
    built-in difficulties for the victims to be believed in the first
    place.  (They don't ask victims who have been mugged and robbed:
    "But you did actually consent to giving this man your money, and
    you enjoyed being slugged - DIDN'T YOU!!!!!")

 Well, another topic to next unseen..

    >You'd rather a rapist go through 20 or 30 trials with the same defense:
    
     Going through a trial is a punishment in and of itself, particularly
    if you're the one paying for it. Who's going to sign themselves up for
    "20 or 30" trials? You don't think that ANY of those trials are going
    to result in a conviction?
    
    >They could build rubber stamps for his indictment and acquittal
    >papers, and send him on his way to rape 100 more women with their
    >blessings.
    
     Instead they should get the rope the second a woman lifts an accusing
    finger, is that it?
    
    >It's a real problem in our system that the evidence of rape closely
    >resembles the evidence of consented sex (even when the woman has
    >been beaten in the process - aka, 'rough sex'.)
    
     Well, maybe if you were on a jury, a woman who has been "beaten" would
    look like she consented to "rough sex", but that is hardly the case for
    all jurors.
    
    >Multiple victims describing the same M.O. and the same threats
    >independently is the only fair way to try a crime which has such
    >built-in difficulties for the victims to be believed in the first
    >place.  
    
     And this is currently allowed to establish a pattern of behavior.
    Which seems quite reasonable. Unless you're standing around with rope
    in hand, looking for the nearest neck.

	Trying a defendant on mutiples charges during a single trial
	is not all that unusual and is an accepted practice in the
	system. It is certainly not a practice that is limited to
	rape cases.

	Each charge must be proved on it's own merits and it is not
	all that unusual for juries in such cases to come back with
	"mixed" verdicts, guilty on some counts, not guilty on others.

Jim

    Y'know, I'm probably going to get flamed all around for saying this,
    being as I'm a woman and all, but I knew a girl in high school 
    (all-girl private Catholic high school, from a wealthy family) who 
    DID beat herself up.  And was proud of doing it to get back at a 
    boyfriend she was angry with.  I knew another one that broke her 
    own arm once and dropped an iron on her foot the second time her 
    boyfriend tried to break up with her.  And I knew about a half dozen 
    who treatened their boyfriends with rape charges if they didn't get 
    what they wanted.  In fact, I met a lot of screwed up,
    twisted little rich girls in high school.....which I supposed
    is where the healthy dose of skepticism comes from when I look
    at cases like this.  I know rape is horrible, I know it happens 
    a lot.  But we cannot convict every man automatically every time a woman 
    accuses rape because sometimes it just isn't true.  I saw the piece
    last night, and while it looks pretty stacked against him, I *know*
    what some of my high school peers were capable of, and sometimes
    I wonder.....
    
    Personally, the one I think should be tried is the FBI guy in
    charge of the case.  What a jerk.  Regardless of what you may think
    of his parents, they loved their son, and they broke no laws in
    this country.  If you want to turn in everyone who ever knew
    anything about a crime and didn't come forward, we'd have a 
    prison in every town in America.  Guys like him are the reason
    our rights are eroding in this country.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

     <<< Note 702.23 by SMURF::MSCANLON "a ferret on the barco-lounger" >>>

>    Personally, the one I think should be tried is the FBI guy in
>    charge of the case.  What a jerk.  Regardless of what you may think
>    of his parents, they loved their son, and they broke no laws in
>    this country. 


Mary-Michael,
	
	Going just from the reports here, it sounds like there is a case
	for harboring a fugitive and aiding and abetting interstate flight
	to avoid prosecution.

	Both are crimes in this country. The latter is a Federal crime.

Jim
    

    RE: .23 
    
    >a lot.  But we cannot convict every man automatically every time a
    >woman accuses rape because sometimes it just isn't true.  I saw the piece
    
    No, but I bet 70% of all Americans could.  

    RE: .23  Mary-Michael

    > I know rape is horrible, I know it happens a lot.  But we cannot 
    > convict every man automatically every time a woman accuses rape 
    > because sometimes it just isn't true. 

    Well, we don't.  Most rapes never make it to trial because it's
    almost impossible to get a conviction based on one woman's word,
    even if the person jumped out from the bushes to make the attack.
    'Date rapes' are even more difficult to prove, of course.

    Robbery cases are a different story.

    This is why it's so important to try multiple counts of rape together.
    If women who don't even know each other report rapes with similar
    M.O.s and threats, there's a better chance to convict the rapist.

    > I saw the piece last night, and while it looks pretty stacked against 
    > him, I *know* what some of my high school peers were capable of, and 
    > sometimes I wonder.....

    Were they capable of imagining the same M.O. and the same threats from 
    the same guy (four days apart) independently?  If so, they were probably
    clairvoyant.

    These two women's independent stories are too similar to be waved off
    by the defense as lies (in the way that rape defenses usually put the
    victims on trial in such cases.)

    >This is why it's so important to try multiple counts of rape together.
    >If women who don't even know each other report rapes with similar
    >M.O.s and threats, there's a better chance to convict the rapist.
    
     Or non-rapist. Not that actual guilt is relevant to winning the case
    or anything.

    RE: .27  Mark Levesque
    
    >> This is why it's so important to try multiple counts of rape together.
    >> If women who don't even know each other report rapes with similar
    >> M.O.s and threats, there's a better chance to convict the rapist.
    
    > Or non-rapist. Not that actual guilt is relevant to winning the case
    > or anything.
    
    Independent reports of a rapist's M.O. and threats (combined with
    injuries and evidence of intercourse) could be evidence of guilt
    beyond a reasonable doubt.
    
    Are you looking to make rape legal or just 99.9% impossible to prove?

    re:rough sex
    
    Asphixiation (sp) is actually enjoying a lot of popularity these days.
    The French supposedly refer to an orgasm as "petit mort", or "a little
    death". Hundreds of deaths occur in this country every year as a result
    of "teasing death" during sex. Auto-erotica is the practice of
    strangling ones self during masturbation. Deaths like these are not
    generally reported factually, but referred to as suicide or accidental
    deaths, which is why you never hear of them.
    
    Jim-
    
    Immediate families are spared the charges of harboring a fugitive in
    most cases.
    
    
    lunchbox

    Excuse me but it auto-erotica is arousing one's self erotically by any
    means.  I think the term you are looking for is
    auto-asphyxiation-mumble.  
    
    meg

    I had heard it referred to as "auto-erotica", but what you said makes
    more sense.

    >Are you looking to make rape legal or just 99.9% impossible to prove?
    
     Neither. I just don't want to lower the bar for prosecutors for this
    crime. The same standard that applies for all other criminal
    prosecutions ought to apply. Nothing more, nothing less.

    >I think he wants to make it unprosecutable so that oversexed perverts
    >will no longer have to live in fear.
    
     The first two words do not jibe with the rest of your sentence.

    FWIW, we had several cases of accidental self-strangulation when I was in
    college.  Belts and scarves seemed to be the most common articles used. 
    Now back to our regularly scheduled rant.  

    
      Just like Doc to think so kindly of the constitutional rights
     of the violent criminals that prey on our society.
    
      bb

    RE: .33  Mark Levesque

    >> Are you looking to make rape legal or just 99.9% impossible to prove?
    
    > Neither. I just don't want to lower the bar for prosecutors for this
    > crime. The same standard that applies for all other criminal
    > prosecutions ought to apply. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Our current system tries multiple rape cases together, so your
    suggestion would amount to a change which would make rape less
    prosecutable than it is now.

    If you agree with the current system, then trying these cases
    together is appropriate.

    I must have been especially tired last night, becasue I actually
    watched most of this so-called news program. 
    
    Observations:
    
    1. Forest Sawyer -- wow -- right out of the Baba Wawa school of
    journalism. Don't ANY of these "reporters" have any competence
    whatsoever?
    
    2. The Kelly parents -- I hope the gov't throws the book at them.
    
    3. Kelly jr -- I don't believe him.
    
    

    Who is this guy?

               <<< Note 702.29 by CSLALL::SECURITY "LUNCHBOX" >>>

>    Immediate families are spared the charges of harboring a fugitive in
>    most cases.
 
	Charges are rarely filed, this doesn't mean that they are exempt.

Jim

    I didn't say they were exempt. I do believe in certain states they are,
    however.
    
    lunchbox

    The FBI hasn't decided yet whether or not to charge Kelly's parents.

    Aside from aiding him and lying to the FBI, they actually *warned*
    Alex from a payphone in the middle of the night when Interpol notified 
    the local police in Sweden to go pick him up.  (They knew to warn him
    because the FBI finally searched their house and found a letter which
    was addressed to Alex but never mailed.  Alex was able to get away
    before the police went to the house where he was staying.)

    Warning a fugitive who is being sought by the FBI *and* Interpol
    sounds pretty serious, but we'll see if the FBI decides to charge
    them.  

    I hate rich kids. Their parents are always covering for them. It seems
    in high school all of the rich kids who got cars for their 16th
    birthday got hammered within a year of getting them and wrapped them
    around a tree, only to have their parents replace them with a newer
    model. GRRRR

    One of the things I noticed (about Alex's and his parents' arrogance
    in all this) was the smirk on his mug shot when he was arrested for
    two counts of rape.  He didn't look like a guy who was shocked out of
    his mind for being arrested for rape (which is what he claimed in the
    interview.)  He looked like a guy who believed he'd never have to pay
    for these crimes, and was having trouble keeping a straight face in
    front of the lowly police. 

    If he is convicted he will have an informal education on rape, and a
    sensitivity towards rape victims training course (complete with role
    playing) courtesy of his fellow inmates due to the girls' ages.
    
    lunchbox

    Re: A lot of notes ago...
    
    From my own personal experiences, it is common to try the defendant on
    all charges brought against him/her at one time. In fact I asked the
    defending lawyer about this and he said that there are usually a number
    of charges brought against the defendant, however many of these charges
    end up being dismissed. The idea here is to end up with at least a few
    charges to try. From what I understand, this is the prosecutor's
    (usually, the DA) job.

    Some stats that really don't have a lot to do with this particular
    case, but are interesting nontheless:
    
    54% of crimes are NEVER REPORTED
    already, half of crimes will never be prosecuted
    
    With unsolved cases, plea bargains, cases thrown out of court for
    insufficient evidence, etc, only 1% of crimes committed ever have
    people go to jail or prison for them. Probation is the most popular
    form of sentencing right now. This is known as the Criminal Justice
    Funnel.
    
    
                           

    so, who is this guy?

    Lunchbox:
    
    How do you know that 54% of all crime is unreported?  If it is
    unreported, how can you put a percentage on it?
    
    Ron

    
    sound's like a good question to me.

Please don't ask lunchpail to rationalize that. 

Thinking makes his head hurt.

    
    maybe he can tell us where he get's these stats. 
    
    

    70% of Boxers know.
    
    :-)

    The real question is:
    
    Which source of transcrpts .0 has sent her money to get the transcripts
    from? The TV show, or another NPR adaptation of what happened. NPR is
    National Public Radio, an unbiased opionion as Rush L is or the KKK..
    
    

    Oh goody.  We now have facial expressions and family net worth as an 
    idicators of guilt.  O.J. II.  Forget about the trial, forget about any
    due process, just go ahead and hang the bastard.  After all, 70% of all
    Americans will eventually come to believe he is guilty.  He is smug and
    rich and therefore he must be guilty.  Get a grip.  
    
    

    Oh, to answer Glenn's question.  Alex Kelly was a smug, spoiled little 
    Rich kid who raped and beat and threatened two women c.a. 1986 and then
    skipped to Europe to be on the lam at his parents expense because he
    was certainly guilty and did not feel his superiorness warranted being
    put in jail while his parnets then ran cover for him from home and
    tipped him off to the movements of the police, FBI, Interpol, the
    Registry of Motor Vehicles because he did not pay a few tickets being a
    rich kid and all and that was far too pedestrian for him being smug and
    superior and all, when finally his passport expired so he gave himself
    up and came home where is now a smug, little rich man and rapist some 10 
    years later.  Does that answer your question, Glenn?   

    Not to mention the fact that he's smug and rich.
    
    At least he didn't hack two people to death with a knife, but one
    surmises this is simply because he didn't get around to it (being a
    lazy, rich kid with inappropriate facial expressions and all.)

    
    Too bad, because if he had hacked those women to death with a knife
    after raping them, he wouldn't have to go through all this terrible 
    trauma. 
    
    

Z    If he is convicted he will have an informal education on rape, and a
Z    sensitivity towards rape victims training course (complete with
Z    role playing) courtesy of his fellow inmates due to the girls' ages
    
    And the course will be led by Benjamin Dougherty, a.k.a. Gentle Ben.

  Z  Rich kid who raped and beat and threatened two women c.a. 1986 and then
  Z  skipped to Europe to be on the lam at his parents expense because he
    
    Is this guy a friend of Gene Haag by chance????

    Brian, thank you. I owe you a beer.

    Why couldn't you just read .1?

    Everything I have heard to date about this case  would 
    not convict him in my opinion.   What sort of evidence
    other than the 'she(s) said...'  is there?  Without 
    sitting in the trail as a juror it is unfair to judge
    him based on all of the media crap.  

    
    The thing that bothers me about his case is that he fled to Eruope,  I
    think that is wrong.  He should of went to court and stood up for him
    self if he didn't do this crime.  Running away make one look guilty.
    
    My husband was accused of a crime he did not commit, and he was accused
    by our police chief - we stood our ground and we won!  I wanted to
    stand up for ourselves, to have a clean name and a place to hold my 
    head high.  I could of avoided the whole thing if I paid off the Chief,
    but that would not be right.  I had alot of cards against me, but it
    was worth it to us to stand up and do the right thing.
    
    This kid fleeing to europe was wrong (IMHO) and the parents helping him
    hide (IMHO) is not cultivating a good honest person.
    
    I know alot of peole are wrongly accused and alot do loose and go to
    jail, but I could not live w/my self for running or taking the easy way
    out.
    
    lkp

    We don't know all the evidence that was obtained about the two rapes.
    Alex Kelly fled to Europe in early 1987 because his lawyer told him
    that the case against him was strong (and his chances of acquittal
    did not look good.)  He was convinced he'd be convicted, so he ran.

    The part that looks very bad for him is that the two women (who still
    don't know each other's identities) told very similar stories about
    the rapes they experienced.  The M.O.'s (including issuing threats
    afterward about what would happen if the women told anyone) were the
    same.  

    They were raped and beaten, but the authorities did not reveal the
    precise physical evidence on the program.  Apparently, it was bad
    enough to make the first trial look (to the Kellys) like he didn't
    have much of a chance for an acquittal, though.

    Re .10:

    > When two women independently describe the same rape M.O. from this
    > guy, . . .

    While you have been bandying this about as if it were conclusive,
    you've ignored the great big gaping hole.  Sure, similar stories are
    strong evidence of similar experience, except that similar stories can
    be induced by other methods, such as similar suggestions during
    questioning.
    
    But a story about what happened does nothing to identify who was in the
    story.  Similar stories suggest one person did both crimes -- but not
    that it was Alex Kelly.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    What is the evidence that links him to the crimes?  

He's rich and has a smug expression.

    Even I knew that already. Suzanne and Lunchbox told me so.  What
    physical evidence other than his financial status and facial
    expressions have been reported?  

    Re .68:
    
    Don't forget, he's a guy too.  I'm sure that's conclusive enough for
    Suzanne Conlon.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    don't forget, he took off for europe for eight years too.
    kinda like an extended bronco ride.  

    re: .71  Agagagagagagagagaga!

    
    	As long as he informed his housekeeper of the trip, I don't
    	see how he could be considered guilty.
    

    I don't think that Kelly disputes that it was he who took the
    girls/women home on the evenings in question. My guess is that he's
    planning on using the "we had sex, but it was consentual" defense.
    

    of course, when you're innocent of rape, you run.  because
    you know there won't be no justice.  so it's off to the alps!

    Alex Kelly's defense is the claim that he had sex with these girls
    (16 and 17 years old at the time) and they consented.  Afterward,
    they each beat themselves up then went to the police.

    It's just a wild coincidence (or whatever) that both high school
    girls happened to say he raped and beat them within four days of
    each other, and that their stories to the police were so very,
    very similar (although they still don't know each other's identities.)

    This is his story and he's sticking to it. :/

    Never mind, I went back an reread the background stuff.  IMO, I agree
    it was stupid of him to have run.  Not having been in his shoes, I do
    not know what I would do if I was in a similar situation, i.e. on the
    verge of being convicted but knowing *I* was innocent.  I might very well 
    flee as I do not think I could survive in prison especially knowing I 
    had not done anything wrong.  Do not misconstrue this to mean I think 
    Kelly is innocent.  I cannot form that opinion.  He could very well be
    guilty and his flight certainly makes it appear that much more likely
    in the eyes of the court of public opinion and most certainly the
    prosecution.  
    
    Brian  

    i switched the show off, out of disgust, when they
    asked his swedish girlfriend why she thought he was
    innocent and she replied, "because i love him".  oh,
    gag.

    We know 54% of all crime is unreported because of the VCS, or Victim's
    Crime Survey. It is a random survey that asks people if they have been
    a victim of crime and if they've reported it. hth
    
    
    lunchbox

    Brian, does this mean that you would not run away from a prison
    sentence if you were guilty of two serious crimes?
    
    Do most people feel such remorse for crimes they did commit that 
    they gladly go to prison when convicted, or do you think a great
    many people who commit crimes would rather not be punished for
    them?

>    We know 54% of all crime is unreported because of the VCS, or Victim's
>    Crime Survey. It is a random survey that asks people if they have been
>    a victim of crime and if they've reported it. hth

Well, clearly, this is an accurate source, then, as random surveys go. No
margin of error conceivable.

    It gives us a rough estimate, doesn't it? How far off could it be?
    7-8%?

    Don't know Suzanne.  I would like to say that I would take my lumps
    but, I cannot say for certain what I would do given I was in that
    situation.  It is not an option I wish to explore and given my
    predisposition to not commit crimes of a jailable nature, I feel
    confident I will not have to face that choice.  
    
    Brian

    RE: .84  Mark
    
    In this case, the parents of Alex Kelly broke the law themselves
    (and the authorities suspected it.)  They weren't just potential
    witnesses.
    
    > The Kelly case is "much to do about nothing". There was a blurb
    > at the end of the interview the other night where they mentioned
    > that the rape charges may never go to trial due to some technicality.
    
    They said that it may never go to trial because most rape cases are
    settled with plea bargains.
    
    They said nothing at all about a 'technicality'.  If he goes to trial
    and is convicted, he could face 25 years in prison.

    
    	Which law[s] did the parents break?
    

    The parents aided a fugitive from justice, including warning their
    son when he was about to be arrested at the request of Interpol.
    
    They may be charged for all this - the FBI hasn't decided about
    this, yet.

    re .84
    
      >  The Kelly case is "much to do about nothing". There was a blurb
      >  at the end of the interview the other night where they mentioned
      >  that the rape charges may never go to trial due to some
      >  technicality.
      >  I can't recall the exact reason, but I think it has something to do
      >  with him being questioned without an attorney present despite his
      >  request to have one present.
    
    this would be a violation of his (miranda wrights) and if this is the
    case chances are he will get off on a technicality simply because the
    arresting officers screwed up. 
                                     
                           

    RE: .88
    
    > this would be a violation of his (miranda wrights) and if this is the
    > case chances are he will get off on a technicality simply because the
    > arresting officers screwed up. 
    
    It's not true.
    
    The 'blurb at the end of the interview' said nothing whatever about
    a technicality.
    
    They said it might not go to trial because most rape cases are
    resolved with a plea bargain arrangement.
    
    (Where Primtime Live got this information is unclear.)

    
    re 90.
    
       > The parents did not commit the alleged rapes, but you might think
       > so. The reason the FBI hasn't charged the parents yet, is because
       > they can use the threat of charges to force Kelly to accept a plea
       > bargain, or provide an out-right confession. If Kelly refuses to
       > play ball with prosecutors, rest assured his parents will be
       > charged.
    
    regardless if the parents committed the crime, if the FBI has found
    incriminating evidence of them aiding a fugative from justice then they
    should also be held accountable for their actions. This appears to be
    all speculation at this time and only until the trial will we find out
    what it is exactly the FBI has on both him and his family.
    
    -Pat-

>    regardless if the parents committed the crime, if the FBI has found
>    incriminating evidence of them aiding a fugative from justice then they
>    should also be held accountable for their actions.

Well, just for the sake of being argumentative, as well as being no fan of
the Federales, I don't necessarily agree that it makes much sense for the
justice department or any other arm of the government to take action on
"aiders and abettors" until they've at least gotten a conviction on the
perp. It's this sort of attitude ("the FBI has the right because ...") that's
gotten us deeper into the police state we live in.

    
    I agree with you 100%. but ok lets argue :^)
    
    During the investigation, the FBI obviously had some suspects in mind
    when trying to find the whereabouts of the said individual, after all
    they have the money to hide him. 
    Now if FBI can provide reciepts of say credit cards, phone bills, and
    I'm sure a judge ok'd the phone taps. The parents are clearly aiding a
    fugative from justice, why shouldnt they be prosecuted?
    
    
    -Pat-

>					The parents are clearly aiding a
>    fugative from justice, why shouldnt they be prosecuted?

No. They aren't "clearly aiding a fugative [sic] from justice". It has yet
to be proved that the Federales even have a case against the guy. As I said,
"in due time". Once they've got a conviction, then they've got a case for
aiding and abetting. Until then, they've got, or should have, a position
as defendent in a libel suit. And if the prosecution on that is in need of
funds, they should contact me.

BTW, my personal opinion, had I to guess, is that the guy is guilty.
This horse foofey about both victims "beating themselves up" is a bit
too far fetched for me to accept. But that doesn't change my opinion
as to the Federales' "rights" regarding his family at this juncture.

    > Well, just for the sake of being argumentative
     
    as I said before, this is all speculation, and until the trial we don't
    know what the FBI has for evidence against his parents.
    
  
    
    
    

    
    let's assume he is found guilty, and the FBI has incriminating evidence
    of his parent's aiding him. Do you think they should be held
    accountable for their actions?
    
    -Pat-

    
    Sure - I think the parents should be held accountable for their
    actions if it can be proven that they broke the law. 
    
    Why not?

IF he's found guilty, then charges should be brought against his parents for
aiding and abetting if evidence exists that they've done so.

Which, in my mind at least, is a far separate matter than finding them guilty 
of crime regardless of the judgement on their son's case. If he's found not
guilty, I couldn't care less what they did short of murdering federal agents
to protect him. 

    
    I also agree that if he IS found guilty then his parents should also be
    held accountable for their actions.
    
    but how can you say that it's a far seperate matter. If he IS guilty
    then by them aiding him to escape from justice they are letting a
    (rapist) roam freely to prey on other victims. 
    
    IMO- convicted rapist should be locked in a room with the girls father...
         that to me is justice!

>    but how can you say that it's a far seperate matter. If he IS guilty

Because, as I already told you, if he ISN'T found guilty, then whatever they
may have done short of murdering federal agents is totally immaterial. The
problem (one of many) with the current system, is that they can be charged 
and convicted for their actions REGARDLESS of his guilt or innocence. That's
dumb. If he's not found guilty they should be blameless for aiding him.
This ain't rocket science, Pat.

    
    >  "if he ISN'T found guilty"
    
    how can this thought even cross your mind. You even said you doubt the
    2 women beat themselves. 
    
    how about a little recap?
    
       > The two women still do not know each other's identities, but their
       > stories were very similar.  In both cases, Alex Kelly offered them
       > rides home, then pulled over to a dark place where he forced them
       > into the back seat of his car where he beat and raped them.  He
       > threatened both girls (one with murder and one with a second rape)
       > if they told anyone what happened.
    
       > Shortly before the trial was to begin in early 1987, Alex Kelly
       > fled to Europe.  His wealthy parents supported him over the years
       > (he spent most of him time in resorts, living the high life.)
       > His parents visited him in Europe four times.
          
    > who is this? Pat - son of lunchpail?
    
      no, but if it helps I have a degree in Criminal Justice    :^)                                 

    
    > This ain't rocket science, Pat.
    
      and after reviewing (702.1) I hardly condider it to be brain surgery.

    Jack, I'm finding your stance a little strange.
    
    The charge concerning the parents isn't 'aiding a known felon'.
    Its 'aiding a fugitive'.  The legislature has determined that it 
    is against the law to help someone evade the federales.  This 
    makes some sense to me, because they're allowed to detain someone 
    for trial (presumed innocent but still subject to arrest, arraignment,
    and trial).  Why do you disagree with the law criminalizing aiding a
    fugitive?
    
    DougO

    
    maybe Jack has retired for the evening?
    
    or he's still reviewing (702.1) and _maybe_ it's beginning to make
    sense.
    
    -Pat-

         <<< Note 702.95 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>No. They aren't "clearly aiding a fugative [sic] from justice". It has yet
>to be proved that the Federales even have a case against the guy. 

Jack,	THe guy could be innocent and the parents could still be charged
	and convicted. If there was a valid arrest warrant for the son
	and they aided his escapre to Europe, they broke the law. His
	actual guilt is not relevant to the charge against the parents.

Jim

    I got the feeling that Jack already knows this.  Knowing it and
    agreeing with it, however, are two different things.

Bingo!

Laws against aiding and abetting a fugitive are out of place, and yet one
further example of a judicial and enforcement system which is both imbalanced
and oppressive. I "can", and do, oppose such laws because they are of the type
which allow federal (and other) authorities free rein to gather up whomever
they please in a "catch-all" fashion to strongarm them into whatever positions
they so choose. That is not the purpose nor the intention of a legal and just
society.

I constantly read in here all of the pissing and moaning by folks about the
inequity of the death penalty because of the "fact" that those found guilty
may not necessarily be so due to the means by which the prosecution may have
extracted confessions from them, or the circumstances under which they were
charged, or the actual implication that they may have had in a particular 
"crime". And then one is expected to be "in favor of" considerations which
put the authorities in a position to gain the benefit from such tactics?
It's no wonder our system is as totally screwed up as it is when you work 
both sides against the middle like that, all in favor of the authorities 
rather than logic. (Without, I daresay, any particular benefit to society
necessarily.)

Sure - I "understand" the way the system is currently set up. That doesn't
mean I have to either like it or agree with it. 

    
    good morning Jack
    
   > Sure - I "understand" the way the system is currently set up. That
   > doesn't
   > mean I have to either like it or agree with it.
    
    nobody ever said you have to like it but thats the way it goes.
    
   > Laws against aiding and abetting a fugitive are out of place
    
    if someone is being sought after by any federal, civil, or state agency
    for some type of crime then 1. if they are innocent and have nothing to
    hide, why else would they run. It's not like Kelly couldnt afford a
    good lawyer. 2. Anyone hindering the Feds or any other agency from
    bringing this person to justice should also be prosecuted.
    
    
    -Pat-

First you recognize the following -

>    nobody ever said you have to like it but thats the way it goes.
    
and then you continue with -

>		Anyone hindering the Feds or any other agency from
>    bringing this person to justice should also be prosecuted.
        
That certainly IS "the way it goes", but it's also the reason for my
concluding that

>   > Laws against aiding and abetting a fugitive are out of place

I prefer a system which puts the onus on the authorities to show guilt
for a crime prior to their ability to prosecute those whom they blithely
accuse of aiding and abetting. I dislike the concept of "You got in our
way and we don't like that so you'll pay for it, you sorry SOB."

>    if someone is being sought after by any federal, civil, or state agency
>    for some type of crime then 1. if they are innocent and have nothing to
>    hide, why else would they run

Does the term "trumped up charge" ring any bells for you, Pat? Are you
incapable of imagining a situation where an innocent person may have
been framed? What color is the sky in your world?

I generally tend to be the last person in this forum to argue for the
potential innocence of the accused, but as I like even less the majority
of the slimeballs in the judicial and enforcement system in this country,
on this score I'll opt for the rights of the accused and those who are
blameless of the objective crime.

  >  Does the term "trumped up charge" ring any bells for you, Pat? Are you
  >  incapable of imagining a situation where an innocent person may have
  >  been framed? What color is the sky in your world?
    
  >  I generally tend to be the last person in this forum to argue for the
  >  potential innocence of the accused, but as I like even less the
  >  majority
  >  of the slimeballs in the judicial and enforcement system in this
  >  country,
  >  on this score I'll opt for the rights of the accused and those who are
  >  blameless of the objective crime
    
    cant you understand Jack, again it's in (702.1). I don't have to
    imagine and where's the innocent person being framed. 
    
    and the color of my sky depends on the weather, although you my friend,
    seem very clouded.
    
    -Pat- 

OK - let's cut the crap and stop mixing apples and oranges, Pat. Do you
want to discuss -
    a) the specifics of this case re: Alex Kelly and his alleged crime
or  b) the general concept of prosecution of aiders and abettors prior
	to conviction of perps

If a, there's little to discuss, as I agree that the guy is probably guilty,
and if so found, his parents should THEN (and only THEN) also be prosecuted.

If b, I expect we'll continue to disagree, but I'm more than willing to keep
at it.

    >The parents aided a fugitive from justice, including warning their
    >son when he was about to be arrested at the request of Interpol.
    
    >They may be charged for all this - the FBI hasn't decided about
    >this, yet.
    
     If Kelly beats the rap, then the parents will be charged. If he's
    convicted, the FBI will have saved enough face and will likely have
    enough to gloat about to not be bothered.

>>    if someone is being sought after by any federal, civil, or state agency
>>    for some type of crime then 1. if they are innocent and have nothing to
>>    hide, why else would they run. It's not like Kelly couldnt afford a
>>    good lawyer. 2. Anyone hindering the Feds or any other agency from
>>    bringing this person to justice should also be prosecuted.
    
    ... well the guy from the fugitive (the real life guy) who was
    prosecuted for killing his wife when he was innocent did run. He also
    found out who really killed her.
    
    As for me, if the feds were after me for something I didn't do, I'm not
    so sure I'd trust justice to try me fairly, or the feds for that
    matter. Yeah, I might just run. Running doesn't necessarily imply that
    one is guilty.
    
    As far as this case goes.,,
    
    Two female witness who were beat up and raped...
    
    I think he's guilty as sin.
    
    Just my opinion though...

    
    	The guy from "The Fugitive" ran because he was already in prison
    	and had already been found guilty.  He was possibly facing the
    	death penalty.
    
    	Hopefully you see a difference between these 2 situations.
    

    |Why couldn't you just read .1?
    
    I did, but it still doesn't say why this is a high profile case. It
    names the guy and says he's rich. So what? I never heard of him before.

    So what? Neither had anybody else.

    oh, I see.

>>    	The guy from "The Fugitive" ran because he was already in prison
>>    	and had already been found guilty.  He was possibly facing the
>>    	death penalty.
>>    
>>    	Hopefully you see a difference between these 2 situations.
    
    
    
    Yeah... I was afraid someone would catch that...
    
    I still tend to be somewhat leary of the Feds... There are such things
    as trumped up charges. What, with all the confiscations going on,
    charges don't even always appear to be necessary...
    
    I dunno, call me paranoid or what not...

    
    	OK, you're paranoid.  But you're also correct.
    

    The parents have already punished themselves quite nicely, I think.
    They must have spent a small fortune paying for this kid to party in
    Europe all these years, in the hopes he would't be caught or convicted,
    and half of those hopes are already dashed.
    
    
    lunchbox

    
    lunchbox, listen carefully and read all the words ok??
    
    
    The parents can be charged with aiding and abetting, regardless of
    their son's innocence or guilt. so, you think the parents have suffered
    enough because of the cost?? gee then, I wonder how the girl's parents
    have suffered at their daughter's being raped. What scares the hell
    out of me, is that your studying law enforcement. that is a scary
    thought indeed. I guess the school's have changed since I studied
    it 15 years ago.
    
    oh, Al Cowlings could have been charged with this same charge, for
    helping OJ on his low speed chase.

    I didn't say the parents shouldn't be charged with anything, Battis.
    Why don't you quit putting words in my mouth? I said they've already
    punished themselves. I didn't say they should be spared from further
    punishment. You read too deep. I hope the Bulls get slammed, even
    though Dennis Rodman is my fav player. Headbutts to all officials.
    
    
    lunchbox

    
     >>I said they've already punished themselves
    
    This brings to mind asking a jury to show mercy to a person who
    murdered his parents, because he's an orphan.
    

    Exactly. We agree, Deb. Perhaps marraige isn't out of the question?
    

         Go for it, lunchbox!!! Still up to your old tricks, I see. 
    

     
    
    hehehe,aaahahaha  :^)
    

    
    Whatever marraige might be.
    

    
    never been, so I could'nt tell ya 
    
    

    i saw a marraige once, out in the desert.

  .131  right on top of things, just like she oasis.

	Milady... to think I once thought you had a dry sense of humor...

    
    she stays dry, because she uses Arid.

    Ok, so I got censored before my two cents could get in...
    
    REWrite
    
    I saw the same program, it reeked of juilt sorry all you bleeding
    hearts, but I think the parents are **really big jerks** They screwed
    up the first kid and he died of a drug overdose...uh huh, think there
    was some problems going on in that kids head..maybe a belligerent
    father that wasn't so supportive, that didn't spend time with his
    kids..looking for someone to blame for all his problems and found his
    kids, type of thing.. oh and the submissive I'll do as I'm told
    mother..she's a bute. So the second kid lashes out...maybe for his
    brother, maybe in spite of him, then gets into more trouble than his
    dopey father can handle..bit humiliated that his son is a lower than
    life scum and this will somehow reflect on his image..so his father,
    feeling terribly violated and mostly above the law, helps his son,
    illegally mind you to flee to another country ahhhh to be rich and
    priviledged..sorry but my parents would have turned my hide into the
    authorities if they thought one minute that I did anything illegal or
    criminal.. I guess being brought up responsible & with some manners and
    values gets you no where...he did it..twice for that matter, he didi it
    with the same arrogance that he proclaims his innocents...sorry the
    innocent D NOT run to oter countries to seek shelter and live like a
    kind. Only the guilty..How come OJ was pinned as "guilty" because he
    ran..but this pretty boy isn't.. He did it. He sould be convicted of
    that and fleeing the country. Then his parents, they should also be
    chaged with obstruction of justice and harboring  a fugitive from
    justice. 
    Pretty boy hiding behind a bank account, a pretty face and the lag time
    he has created with his little fleeing fiasco...nice to have the money
    to assault and walk. 
    

    Hi guys.  Wadi ya dune?

    
    <----  not much, just sand bagging.

  .136  these fests are always Bedouin you're involved.

    Sahara been?

    What sheik.  Tres sheik, even.

    
    this little pun fest is starting to get a little watered down.

>        <<< Note 702.111 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>I prefer a system which puts the onus on the authorities to show guilt
>for a crime prior to their ability to prosecute those whom they blithely
>accuse of aiding and abetting...

	if the parents believe their son is innocent, then, under your
	scheme, why should they be prosecuted whether he is or is not?
	what is their crime?  aiding and abetting someone they thought
	was innocent but wasn't?  how does that differ from aiding and
	abetting someone they thought was innocent and was, in terms of
	intent on the part of the parents?

The way the system now works, if the feds (or any other enforcement agency)
claim they have a charge against a fugitive, they are free to prosecute
anyone aiding or abetting said fugitive regardless of the guilt of the
fugitive. As is sometimes the case, the fugitive, when found and brought to
trial, is found not guilty. The fugitive goes free, yet the aiders/abettors
are still penalized, even though they were helping an innocent person,
simply due to the fact that they were "guilty" of obstruction of justice
through the aid they provided.

This system, in a word, is stupid. Not to mention which, it provides the
authorities with undue power to prosecute people who really are free of
any actual guilt on their own.

How much more preferable to give the authorities the power to only prosecute
those who have aided or abetted those who have been actually found guilty.

Yet another instance of abusive powers being granted to agencies and officers 
incapable of managing them honorably.

  .143  but you didn't answer my questions.

| <<< Note 702.141 by ACISS1::BATTIS "Chicago Bulls-1996 world champs" >>>


| this little pun fest is starting to get a little watered down.

	It's just dust in the wind

    Jack, we understand that this is your opinion.
    
    One wonders whether you think authority to detain and to bring to trial
    is legitimate.  Yes or no, should the state have the power to bring
    people up on charges and to prevent their flight meanwhile?
    
    If you accept that such is a legitimate power granted to authority,
    then how can you fail to recognize that there must be lawful
    punishments for interference with that authority?  Yet you do fail
    to recognize it.  That's what got some of us confused.  What isn't
    clear about this to you?  The original suspect's eventual guilt or
    innocence is irrelevent; the system either has the authority to detain
    or it doesn't, and interfering with that authority is punishable.
    
    DougO

>    One wonders whether you think authority to detain and to bring to trial
>    is legitimate.  Yes or no, should the state have the power to bring
>    people up on charges and to prevent their flight meanwhile?

Yes, the state should have the power to bring people up on charges, and, No,
the state shouldn't be granted indisciminate power in preventing such flight,
to the extent that they may penalize people who may be harboring/aiding/abetting
the innocent. That's my claim - aiders and abettors should only be prosecuted
if and when the guilty are convicted, because to do so prior to such conviction
grants the state freedom to frivolously prosecute. E.G., charge person x with 
something, knowing full well that you can't make it stick, but also knowing
that person y will atempt to harbor them, while your real intent is to prosecute
(or confiscate goods from) person y, whom you can't find any other reason to
prosecute. Case closed.

>    If you accept that such is a legitimate power granted to authority,
>    then how can you fail to recognize that there must be lawful
>    punishments for interference with that authority?  Yet you do fail
>    to recognize it.

It's not a question of failing to recognize it, Doug. It's a matter of
disagreeing with the justice of it. As I've said all along, there's all
the time in the world to bring aiders and abettors up on charges _AFTER_
the guilty have been convicted. Too much injustice can take place when those
who harbor the innocent are ruined ahead of time. If the perp turns out
to be guilty, by all means penalize those who aided in his flight, on
the other hand. Seems to serve the purpose nicely.

>			the system either has the authority to detain
>    or it doesn't, and interfering with that authority is punishable.

Only because that's the way the law is written. That doesn't make it right,
necessarily.

    Obstruction of justice is a crime, all by itself. It's not dependent on
    an eventual conviction of the person in flight.
    
    

>	if the parents believe their son is innocent, then, under your
>	scheme, why should they be prosecuted whether he is or is not?

Because if one is innocent, and the state hasn't a case against one, then
why should the state be granted the means of prosecuting others simply
because they screwed with the state? Sometimes the state deserves to
be screwed with.

>	what is their crime?  aiding and abetting someone they thought
>	was innocent but wasn't?

If the guy is guilty, then the state has the right to punish him and
any who might have helped him avoid his just punishment. If the state
doesn't have the former right (in the case of his innocence) then they
shouldn't retain the latter.

>  				how does that differ from aiding and
>	abetting someone they thought was innocent and was, in terms of
>	intent on the part of the parents?

It hasn't anything to do with the opinion or intent of the abettor. It
has to do with whether or not the state should have freedom to prosecute
anyone if there was no intial crime.

>    Obstruction of justice is a crime, all by itself.

And it's my opinion that it should be prosecutable and punishable only
under circumstances which are reasonable, rather than at the whim of
some corrupt enforcement or prosecution agency. Making it criminal
only when there is original crime and guilt proven  would accomplish 
that.

    Wrong.
    
    What if the aiding and abetting is successful, and the perpetrator
    NEVER comes to trial?  Should the persons who assisted in the flight
    of said perpetrator escape their own due prosecution?
    
    You can't pick and choose like this.  
    

>			  Should the persons who assisted in the flight
>    of said perpetrator escape their own due prosecution?

If the state can't prove guilt on the part of the perp, then, yes, the state
should have no case against those who assisted in flight. You prefer that
those who harbor the innocent should be incarcerated or worse? 

And,

>    You can't pick and choose like this.  
    
Sure I can, John. This is the 'box.

    
    Prosecution isn't a death sentence, Jack.
    
    Those charged get their day in court. That's the system.
    
    

>        <<< Note 702.149 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>...simply because they screwed with the state? Sometimes the state deserves to
>be screwed with.

	yuck.  okay, so this is sort of an emotional stance you're taking.

	if, by their actions, those aiding fugitives cause the state or
	the feds to spend unnecessary time and money going after someone, they
	should be prosecuted, imo.  irrespective of the guilt or innocence
	of the fugitive.  i don't see how you can justify making one charge
	contingent upon the outcome of the other.

    
    Anyways, I'm less fearful of GOVERNMENT going haywire prosecuting
    people, than I am of CIVILIANS suing the hell out of each other over
    any and everything.
    
    

	Ban suing civillians!

          
    Kelly Pleads Innocent in Restaurant Disturbance
    
    By Associated Press, 07/29/96 
    
    STAMFORD, Conn. (AP) - Alex Kelly, the former international fugitive 
    awaiting trial on rape charges, pleaded innocent Monday to charges 
    stemming from a recent dispute he had with three women at a local 
    restaurant. 
    
    Kelly, 29, is scheduled to stand trial Oct. 1 in the first of two 1986
    rape cases. 
    
    Kelly was arrested July 19 following an incident at Jimmy's Seaside, a bar 
    and restaurant in Stamford. He was free on a $1 million bond in the highly 
    publicized rape case. 
    
    Police said Kelly became belligerent when they tried to question him about 
    a complaint they received from a restaurant patron. A woman said she and 
    her two female friends were being badgered by Kelly, who, according to 
    police, repeatedly approached them to profess his innocence in the rape 
    cases. 
    
    When the women asked Kelly to leave them alone, he became confrontational 
    and made a sexual remark toward them, according to police. 
    
    He was charged with breach of peace and interfering with a police officer, 
    both misdemeanors. 
    
    Kelly did not speak in court Monday. His attorney, Thomas Puccio, entered 
    innocent pleas, but would not comment on the specifics of the case. 
    
    ``Obviously, I would take note of the fact that he pleaded not guilty,
    '' Puccio said. ``He doesn't agree that a crime was committed.'' 
    
    The case was continued to Aug. 19. 
    
    Senior Assistant State's Attorney Bruce Hudock, who is prosecuting Kelly 
    in the rape cases, would not comment when asked if the restaurant incident 
    would prompt him to seek new restrictions on Kelly's bond. 
    
    Kelly's bond now requires a curfew from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. - monitored by an 
    electronic bracelet - and a travel restriction to Connecticut, except for 
    visits to his lawyer's New York office. 
    
    Kelly was an 18-year-old wrestling star at Darien High School when he was 
    charged in February 1986 with raping two teen-age girls in separate 
    incidents. He pleaded innocent to the charges, but fled the country on the 
    eve of his 1987 trial and lived as a fugitive for eight years before 
    turning himself in to Swiss authorities in January 1995. 
    

    No jurors yet after four days in Kelly rape retrial
    
    Associated Press, 04/16/97 01:37 
    
    STAMFORD, Conn. (AP) - After four days of jury selection in the Alex
    Kelly rape retrial, not a single juror had been chosen, and lawyers on
    both sides were growing weary. 
    
    As prosecutor Bruce Hudock began to question a woman about whether she
    could ignore the widespread publicity surrounding the case, the answer
    became obvious. 
    
    She was shaking her head before he finished the question. 
    
    ``I would just say that I know a great deal about it, and I am appalled
    by it,'' she said. 
    
    ``I have three daughters myself so I just can't...,'' she said, adding
    that she made up her mind ``a long time ago'' that Kelly is guilty. 
    
    Judge Kevin Tierney dismissed the woman after she said she could not be
    unbiased. 
    
    That's how it went for four other potential jurors Tuesday, as Tierney
    excused one after another for apparent bias against Kelly, the former
    Darien High School wrestling star charged in 1986 with raping two
    teen-age girls. 
    
    Each said they had read extensively about the case in a variety of
    newspapers and watched countless reports on television. 
    
    Although both the prosecution and defense previously had expressed
    confidence about picking a jury in Stamford, that confidence appeared
    to wane Tuesday. 
    
    Kelly's attorney, Thomas Puccio, who had backed off an earlier request
    to move the trial out of Stamford, hinted that he may renew his request
    for a change of venue if potential jurors continue to show obvious bias
    against Kelly. 
    
    ``It could reach that point,'' Puccio said. ``We're not there yet, but
    it flashed through my mind in the last couple of hours. We seem to be
    getting an awful lot of people who have read a lot about the case. That
    could be a problem.'' 
    
    Tierney reminded the lawyers and the potential jurors that simply
    reading a lot about the case would not keep them off the jury. But even
    the judge acknowledged that he had not realized the heavy media
    coverage would have such a powerful impact. 
    
    The judge said he planned to instruct the jury pool at the start of
    each day that they should inform him about any strong bias they may
    have developed from reading about the case so those people can be
    weeded out more quickly. 
    
    Hudock would not comment when asked if he was concerned that the trial
    might have to be moved out of Stamford. 
    
    ``I have a wait-and-see attitude,'' he said. 
    
    Kelly, 29, fled the country days before his original trial was
    scheduled to begin in 1987. He lived as an international fugitive for
    eight years before surrendering in Switzerland in 1995. 
    
    His trial in the first rape case ended in a hung jury and mistrial in
    November. He is to be tried separately in the second case. 
    
    Among the jurors excused Tuesday was a secretary from Norwalk who said
    she had read a lot about the case and discussed it with her friends and
    co-workers. 
    
    ``A lot of people think he did it,'' she said, adding that she shared
    that opinion. 
    
    Asked if she could put aside what she had read and heard about the
    case, she said, ``I don't know if I could forget everything.'' 
    
    A man who works as a property inspector for the city of Stamford said
    he had read extensively about the case. In dismissing the man, the
    judge said it wasn't his knowledge of the case that concerned him, but
    the kinds of stories the man seemed to focus on. 
    
    The man said he had read about a car accident in which Kelly allegedly
    fled the scene and left his injured girlfriend in the road. Kelly was
    charged in that accident in September, just before his first rape trial
    began. 
    
    The man said he also saw a television program in which actors
    re-enacted the alleged attack in a Jeep Wagoneer. During Kelly's first
    trial, his defense focused on the victim's claim that Kelly pinned her
    down and lowered the back seat of the Jeep while keeping his hands
    around her throat. 
    
    Jury selection was scheduled to resume today. 

so, if people are so swayed/informed by the media, then printing graphic details
about the case at the end of their report on lack of finding jurors due to their
knowledge of the case shouldn't continue to help not finding unbiased jurors, 
no?

ogre.

  Suppose there are no people on the planet who are not convinced you are
 guilty.  Do they have to let you go ?

  bb

        <<< Note 702.215 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>

>  Suppose there are no people on the planet who are not convinced you are
> guilty.  Do they have to let you go ?

	Yes. Under such circumstances it would be impossible to recieve
	a fair trial under the current rules.

	At some point, the defense could argue that the right to a speedy
	trial was being violated and would move for a dismissal.

Jim

    First two jurors picked in Kelly retrial
    
    Associated Press, 04/18/97 01:31 
    
    STAMFORD, Conn. (AP) - The first two jurors have been picked in the
    Alex Kelly rape retrial, ending a five-day stalemate where no jurors
    were chosen. 
    
    Lawyers on Thursday picked a 68-year-old man from Stamford who works as
    an engineer and a 39-year-old Westport woman. 
    
    More than 20 potential jurors have been dismissed because of personal
    reasons or apparent bias against Kelly, a Darien High School wrestling
    star who fled the country after being charged with raping two teen-age
    girls in 1986. 
    
    Kelly, who surrendered in Switzerland in 1995 after eight years on the
    run, stood trial last fall in the first rape case. That trial ended
    with a hung jury and mistrial. His retrial in that case is scheduled to
    begin April 28. No date has been set yet for his trial in the second
    rape case. 

    re: .216
    
    Not too sure that this is the case. Not in the UK anyway. The judge may
    dismiss the jury, the trial will then continue with either the single
    judge presiding over the cae, or two more judges. Forming a comittee if
    you like. They were thinking of doing this in fraud trials, especially
    after the Maxwell incident. The trial was so long and complex that an
    evergae joe bloggs off the street would not understand the evidence
    that we being presented to to him.
    
    Steven

    Re .218:
    
    > Not in the UK anyway. The judge may dismiss the jury, the trial will
    > then continue with either the single judge presiding over the cae, or
    > two more judges.

    Yah, we here in the United States know about the English doing that
    sort of thing.  It's the reason for the sixth amendment.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Judge dismisses kidnapping charge against Alex Kelly, leaving single
    count of rape
    
    By the Associated Press, 05/29/97 
    
    STAMFORD, Conn. (AP) - A judge today dismissed a kidnapping charge
    against onetime fugitive Alex Kelly in his retrial, ruling there was no
    evidence he had abducted the woman he is accused of raping in 1986. 
    
    Superior Court Judge Kevin Tierney's ruling came the morning after the
    state rested its case. 
    
    The decision leaves Kelly facing a single count of first-degree sexual
    assault in the first of two rape cases being brought against him. The
    charge carries a maximum 20-year sentence. 
    
    The kidnapping count carried a maximum sentence of 25 years. 
    
    Kelly's first rape trial ended last November in a hung jury. 
    
    He was charged with kidnapping and raping two teen-age girls in 1986
    after giving them rides home. 
    
    Kelly, now 30, lived as an international fugitive for eight years
    before surrendering in Switzerland in 1995. 
    
    In the case now being heard, Kelly is accused of forcing a 16-year-old
    Darien girl into the back seat of a Jeep Wagoneer and raping her after
    driving by her home, where he was supposed to have dropped her off. 
    
    In dismissing the kidnapping charge, the judge cited the girl's
    voluntary entry into the vehicle and her ``miniscule'' movement from
    the front to rear seat. 
    
    The judge said abduction is a key element of kidnapping under state
    law. 
    
    Prosecutors cited a case in which someone was convicted of kidnapping
    after having moved someone from one room of a store to another. 
    
    In support of the kidnapping charge, prosecutor Bruce Hudock said the
    evidence showed that Kelly drove by the girl's house despite her pleas
    to stop, pulled over at a cul de sac, then grabbed her by the throat
    and forced her into the back of the Jeep. 
    
    But defense attorney Thomas Puccio said the state had failed to show
    there was an abduction. 
    
    "We all know this is not a kidnapping case. It is a sexual assault
    case. Prosecutors love to throw in these charges,'' he said. 
    
    As prosecutors rested their case Wednesday in the retrial, they left
    the jury with a final image of Kelly failing to show up for his
    original trial a decade ago. 
    
    Testimony also focused heavily on the 1983 Jeep Wagoneer where the
    alleged rape took place; the jury was shown dueling videotapes - from
    prosecutors and the defense - to demonstrate the mechanics of the
    vehicle. 
    
    Questions about how the rear seat was lowered and how the alleged
    victim got from the front passenger seat to the rear cargo area became
    a major issue for jurors in Kelly's first trial. 
    
    As the new jury of three men and three women listened intently, a court
    clerk read portions of a court transcript from Feb. 18, 1987, the day
    jury selection was scheduled to begin in Kelly's original trial. 
    
    The transcript details Kelly's failure to appear in court, the court's
    forfeiture of his bond and an order for his rearrest. 
    
    In the transcript, the judge asks Kelly's former lawyer, Michael
    Sherman, about Kelly's whereabouts. 
    
    "As I indicated to the court in chambers, your honor, I don't know
    where my client is,'' replies Sherman. 
    
    It was the first time the jury in Kelly's retrial has heard evidence _
    other than vague references _ about Kelly's failure to appear for his
    trial more than a decade ago. 
    
    The jury still hasn't heard about his life on the run, which
    authorities have described as an extended European ski vacation
    financed by his wealthy parents. 
    
    The judge has said that the prosecution may offer details about Kelly's
    life on the lam only after the defense is given the chance to offer
    reasons for Kelly's flight. 
    
    In Kelly's first trial, his lawyers depicted him as a scared,
    19-year-old kid who fled not because he was guilty, but because he was
    afraid. At the time he left, both rape cases were to be tried together
    and Kelly, a high school wrestling star, would have been faced by two
    accusers telling similar stories. 
    
    After Kelly's surrender, a judge agreed to hold separate trials. 
    
    No date has been set yet for a trial in the second case. 

    miniscule? Now where have I seen that before?

I guess the AP can't afford a spellchecker.