Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING: Steubenville's Jane Doe Receives Death Threats (220 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Shouldn't that have been done (0+ / 0-)

    long before the arrests? My understanding is it took quite awhile for anyone to get arrested and that she was trying to influence the investigation from the first allegations.

    •  You would think so from what's been claimed (3+ / 0-)

      on this site and others about some sort of massive coverup, wouldn't you? Here's part of the timeline, showing that arrests were made eight days after the report:

      August 11-12, 2012. The incident that began this case occurred.
      -August 14, 2012. The incident was reported to Steubenville Police.
      -August 16, 2012. Electronic devices of people who potentially had knowledge of the incident were taken, pursuant to search warrants.
      -August 17, 2012. Steubenville Police request technical and investigative support from the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation “BCI” (a state agency supervised by the Ohio Attorney General). At the request of Steubenville Police, BCI expedited the evidence analysis. The analysis involved uncovering and reviewing tens of thousands of emails, texts, and photos from approximately a dozen electronic devices. The vast majority of such data was unrelated to the case.  Investigators and forensic examiners never found any video of the alleged crime.
      -August 22, 2012.  Based on the investigation of the Steubenville Police, two juvenile males were arrested and charged. Their names are Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond.  Suspects remained in juvenile detention until November 1, 2012 when the Visiting Judge (from outside the county) assigned to the case placed the suspects on home arrest.
      -August 28, 2012.  County Prosecuting Attorney delegates her authority to special prosecutors from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office.
      Timeline

      I'm not familiar enough with the Ohio system to know when she would have been involved in the process -- in some places the prosecutors are called in early but not in others. She might not have received the case until after the arrests or she might have been in it from the beginning or she might have discovered any conflict somewhere in the middle of that two-week period -- I haven't researched that and I'm not sure there's any reliable information to tell us. So, I have no info on whether or how she influenced the process, but the timeline itself does not lead me to conclude she did. A great deal of what's been claimed about conflicts of interest and the handling of the case has been demonstrably false, which is not at all to say the underlying claim was -- the crime was obviously committed.  

      •  Thanks for the info. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Villanova Rhodes

        I think maybe the lag between the reports and her handing off the case - 14 days - is what makes people think that. I don't know if that's all that long, but depending on how much influence she would have while the investigation was ongoing, that 14 days is long enough to do or attempt to do a lot of damage.

        •  I think we'll probably never know, but (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AkaEnragedGoddess, WakeUpNeo

          if there was an attempt to cover up, it obviously wasn't a very competent one. On the other hand, the grand jury investigation may turn up additional incidents or additional perpetrators who should have been named from the start. If evidence is found that she somehow diverted attention from the adults (e.g., coaches), that could be damning. But I don't see it yet. As the Prosecuting Attorney for the county, she normally deals with the Sheriff's Office, and this case was reported to and handled by the City PD, so my guess is that she was not officially involved early. But it is just a guess.

          •  That (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Villanova Rhodes, WakeUpNeo
            . If evidence is found that she somehow diverted attention from the adults (e.g., coaches), that could be damning.
            is a mighty interesting consideration.
            •  Final note -- (0+ / 0-)

              Now that I've reviewed the probable cause hearing transcript, it does appear that the prosecuting attorney met with the police pretty early on, in connection with getting the warrants for some of the cell phones at least. There's been a claim that she tried to talk the family out of pursuing the matter, but whether that was anything other than a standard explanation of what they'd be up against with a rape victim who didn't remember the crimes isn't clear. She definitely didn't stop the investigation and prosecution, but whether she focused it inappropriately on just these two guys remains to be seen. Given how involved she seems to be with the school, I'd have expected pretty prompt recusal, but don't know when she started that process.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site