Sex trafficking victim to pay family of rapist she killed in self defence

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Since we don't have a clear timeline, let's consider the probabilities. Do you think she entered a plea before, or after, being charged? (That one's easy, but they get harder!)

After.

Quote:

Do you think she was charged before, or after, the police took statements from her?

After.

Quote:

Are police in the U.S. likely to encourage suspects in custody to make statements without a lawyer's advice (after duly reminding them of their right to remain silent "if they don't want to help themselves out" of course), and before deciding upon charges, or do they generally prefer to stall and avoid asking any leading questions until there are specific charges to answer and a lawyer is present?

They are likely to pump them for whatever they can, whether or not it will be admissible later. It might give them something to look out for during the investigation that will turn out to be admissible.

Quote:

Is when "we first hear about" a statement made by a suspect likely to be the time the statement was first made?

Yes, especially because pleaders notoriously amend their initial statements when wheeling and dealing.

Eta: not clear on what you mean on that last one in the highlited. Do you mean when initial statements were made, or when they are first presented (that we know of)?

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by plague311

Her word is the only word we have and she's the only one that's been charged, and sentenced. She has no real reason to lie anymore. How else is she going to serve herself by making these statements? Where is she coming out ahead? When you take a plea bargain you have to confess and explain the crimes you've committed, and they have to be truthful. Are they always? No, I'm not a dip **** and I've been through more enough plea bargains to know the process.

With regards to the lying, people do it all the time, we know they do even after being found guilty.

Quote:

She killed a guy while he slept. I'm not making excuses for her. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm not saying she's innocent.

Well then we are on the same wavelength.

Quote:

I'm saying I feel it was justified. In fact, I even agreed with Zigg that the law was followed, this is the outcome the law required, and I understood it. That doesn't mean I like it. I don't think she should have been charged because of the circumstances, and I still feel that way.

And this is where our thinking differs. I believe she should have been charged. I think the sentence she got was fair. It's pretty much a good behaviour bond and a fine is it not?

If it comes out the guy did actually rape her then I don't agree his family should benefit financially, but the girl in question was rightfully (IMO) prosecuted and given a pretty lenient sentence.

Quote:

You've said that this was a revenge prison and she got what she deserved. Ok, then you and I have nothing more to discuss. We both have the same evidence. You think she belongs in jail, I don't. The one thing I am happy about is that she'll hopefully go to a place where she isn't perpetually abused, sold and raped. I hope the best for her.

I said she should have been charged, I don't believe I said she should have been jailed.

Now this is all hinging on her story being true of course. We do only have her word on this. If her story is true, I believe the best outcome is what she has actually received. The court didn't jail her but it did punish her. And part of the punishment is that she attends programs that hopefully can help her.

I do not think the killing was justified, I think she got away very leniently bearing in mind the lack of evidence to support her side of the story.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

And this is where our thinking differs. I believe she should have been charged. I think the sentence she got was fair. It's pretty much a good behaviour bond and a fine is it not?

If it comes out the guy did actually rape her then I don't agree his family should benefit financially, but the girl in question was rightfully (IMO) prosecuted and given a pretty lenient sentence..

There is no reality that exists where he didn't rape her. She's 15 years old, unless you're now saying that absolutely no sex occurred at all, which would be a huge claim. The cops, the prosecutors and the defense all are in on it, as well. They all agree on the basics of the case, so if you're implying that she was never raped then...that's just crazy.

Whatever though. You said your piece, I said mine. If we can't even agree on the basic fundamentals of the case because you think it's possible she's literally making everything up then there's no common ground we'll find from here on out, and I frankly find it insulting to her. Your attitude here is why women don't come forward. People just won't believe them. That sucks. That really, really sucks. Expected, especially around here, I knew there would be a few. It's just always interesting to see who it will be.

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by plague311

There is no reality that exists where he didn't rape her. She's 15 years old, unless you're now saying that absolutely no sex occurred at all, which would be a huge claim. The cops, the prosecutors and the defense all are in on it, as well. They all agree on the basics of the case, so if you're implying that she was never raped then...that's just crazy.

Whatever though. You said your piece, I said mine. If we can't even agree on the basic fundamentals of the case because you think it's possible she's literally making everything up then there's no common ground we'll find from here on out, and I frankly find it insulting to her. Your attitude here is why women don't come forward. People just won't believe them. That sucks. That really, really sucks. Expected, especially around here, I knew there would be a few. It's just always interesting to see who it will be.

Isn't more a case of they cannot disprove it? The person doesn't have to prove themselves innocent, the state has to find them guilty, right?

Of course it is possible she is making it up, for you to dismiss that is absurd. At the moment there is no evidence of her side of the story. None.

Do you just instantly believe every female who killed someone who makes allegations of sexual assault? I mean no woman has ever made false allegations like this right?

Because I am dubious of one case where there is no evidence that means my attitude is why women don't come forward? Seriously? That's where you want to go? Pathetic. Every single case should be taken on its own merits.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Thermal

After.

After.

They are likely to pump them for whatever they can, whether or not it will be admissible later. It might give them something to look out for during the investigation that will turn out to be admissible.

Yes, especially because pleaders notoriously amend their initial statements when wheeling and dealing.

Okay, so your scenario is: she was advised by competent lawyers that if she said in her plea in court that she killed him in a fit of rage it would make a self-defense claim impossibly difficult (but rule out premiditation, i.e. first-degree murder), while if she said she was in fear of her life she could make a self-defense case (while still providing no evidence of premeditation), and of course that pleading in court doesn't even involve explanations in the first place, just the words "guilty" or "not guilty..."

She nonetheless amended her statements during her plea to say that she had killed in a fit of rage, because it was just the honest simple truth. It seems this rage-killing vengeful hardcore prostitute is also a saintly paragon of honesty! No wonder people have been supporting her GoFundMe.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Okay, so your scenario is:

Not even close. My "scenario" is that the known facts could be interpreted in a variety of ways, of which the narrative of slavery seems less likely than others. The narrative here, you might note, is not really what she claims herself.

Quote:

...she was advised by competent lawyers that if she said in her plea in court that she killed him in a fit of rage it would make a self-defense claim impossibly difficult (but rule out premiditation, i.e. first-degree murder), while if she said she was in fear of her life she could make a self-defense case (while still providing no evidence of premeditation), and of course that pleading in court doesn't even involve explanations in the first place, just the words "guilty" or "not guilty..."

She nonetheless amended her statements during her plea to say that she had killed in a fit of rage, because it was just the honest simple truth. It seems this rage-killing vengeful hardcore prostitute is also a saintly paragon of honesty! No wonder people have been supporting her GoFundMe.

Sounds like this version gets a lot of traction, doesn't it? A little mea culpa takes you a long way in seeming sincere, doesn't it?

Again, I'm not looking to retry her case, given that we have very little other than the word of the Sole Survivor to go by. Looking at the facts: she was living with a couple dudes who gave her drugs. She had a social media page set up where sex was being traded (this happens willingly by some, you know). She goes off with a responder and kills him and steals his car, then back home to a guy who she calls her boyfriend.

I mean, you really can't see how this whole ordeal could be read another way?

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Not even close. My "scenario" is that the known facts could be interpreted in a variety of ways, of which the narrative of slavery seems less likely than others. The narrative here, you might note, is not really what she claims herself.

Sounds like this version gets a lot of traction, doesn't it? A little mea culpa takes you a long way in seeming sincere, doesn't it?

No, the narrative I wrote that you're commenting on is absurd, because I was making the point that her statement describing killing in a fit of rage was most likely something she told the police in early questioning without benefit of counsel, rather than a later revision issued under the advice of a competent lawyer, or some kind of announcement (contrary to court procedure) while entering a plea in court.

Quote:

Again, I'm not looking to retry her case, given that we have very little other than the word of the Sole Survivor to go by. Looking at the facts: she was living with a couple dudes who gave her drugs. She had a social media page set up where sex was being traded (this happens willingly by some, you know). She goes off with a responder and kills him and steals his car, then back home to a guy who she calls her boyfriend.

I mean, you really can't see how this whole ordeal could be read another way?

I could if I arbitrarily disregarded some of the reported facts like being unwilling to engage in the "trade" and being threatened at knife point. The problem with that is, those facts came from the same sources as all the facts you cited. Did the "boyfriend" really hold a knife to her? Maybe not! Was there really a social media page? Maybe not! Did she really steal the car? Maybe not! Did any murder happen at all? Maybe not! See the problem there?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Myriad

No, the narrative I wrote that you're commenting on is absurd, because I was making the point that her statement describing killing in a fit of rage was most likely something she told the police in early questioning without benefit of counsel, rather than a later revision issued under the advice of a competent lawyer, or some kind of announcement (contrary to court procedure) while entering a plea in court.

Really? I hadn't read that anywhere. If we take that as true, does that demand everything else must be true? Or might it be salting the mine a bit, blending the original statements with the new amendments?

Quote:

I could if I arbitrarily disregarded some of the reported facts like being unwilling to engage in the "trade" and being threatened at knife point. The problem with that is, those facts came from the same sources as all the facts you cited.

Not really. I am citing what the police seem to agree with. For instance:

Quote:

Did the "boyfriend" really hold a knife to her? Maybe not!

True. She said it cut her. Surely easy for the police to show?

Quote:

Was there really a social media page? Maybe not!

No, it was found, with her picture even shown and reprinted in the articles here (it's the one with her puckering and butterflies on her face).

Quote:

Did she really steal the car? Maybe not!

The police said they found it in her parking lot, and I think with her having the keys?

Quote:

Did any murder happen at all? Maybe not!

I do believe the police have a body. Not ruled a suicide or accident, that I recall.

Quote:

See the problem there?

More clearly than you intended, yes.

[lionking]

She was raped more than once. She saw a knife on a nightstand. She was 15. She most likely did not know how light a sleeper Brooks was. I think it would be quite reasonable in the circumstances for her to think the knife would ultimately be used on her. Self defence in my view.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Really? I hadn't read that anywhere. If we take that as true, does that demand everything else must be true? Or might it be salting the mine a bit, blending the original statements with the new amendments?

Not really. I am citing what the police seem to agree with. For instance:

True. She said it cut her. Surely easy for the police to show?

No, it was found, with her picture even shown and reprinted in the articles here (it's the one with her puckering and butterflies on her face).

The police said they found it in her parking lot, and I think with her having the keys?

I do believe the police have a body. Not ruled a suicide or accident, that I recall.

More clearly than you intended, yes.

Ah, I see the issue. I never realized you'd spoken directly to the police. Those of us who haven't done so are understandably going to have a bit more difficulty determining "what they seem to agree with."

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Ah, I see the issue. I never realized you'd spoken directly to the police. Those of us who haven't done so are understandably going to have a bit more difficulty determining "what they seem to agree with."

Ah, I see the issue. You take nothing in the reporting at face value. I presume you need to in a present at the autopsy before conceding that there is in fact a corpse at issue?

Come on, man. If this was a story about a guy who greased somebody and stole their car, everyone would discount their version as self serving to avoid prison. You buy everything that George Zimmerman said without question, I suppose?

The reporting is that the police said they have a corpse with 30 some stab wounds. Do you dispute this? Really?

The reporting is that the police found Brooks' car where Lewis was staying. In dispute?

The reporting is that a FB dating page with Lewis puckering up was found. Disputed?

I'd like to know how the police connected the car in the lot to Lewis or the musician. That might clear things up a bit. Was Lewis seen at Brooks' place? Witnesses? Anything like that? Did Lewis confess on the spot? Hey, if the musician was threatening and controlling her, was she taking the rap for the musician actually killing Brooks, or her killing Brooks on the musician's behalf, thinking that a juvenile girl might pluck heartstrings and get off easier? If posters here feel so free to embellish her story, why not embellish in both directions?

My point here is my eternal one on this forum: posters are being led around by the nose by a socially poignant narrative they like. Doesn't seem to matter much that the facts are ambiguous. I'm inclined to generally believe her, but there is room for doubt.

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Posters are being led around by the nose by a socially poignant narrative they like. Doesn't seem to matter much that the facts are ambiguous. I'm inclined to generally believe her, but there is room for doubt.

Well said.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

Originally Posted by Thermal

Posters are being led around by the nose by a socially poignant narrative they like. Doesn't seem to matter much that the facts are ambiguous. I'm inclined to generally believe her, but there is room for doubt.

Well said.

Guilty unless proven innocent beyond reasonable doubt?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Guilty unless proven innocent beyond reasonable doubt?

We aren't in court. There is no requirement for us to leap to any kind of conclusion. We are supposed to be sceptics. Sceptics default position is surely supposed doubt rather than outrage. For myself, I am content to say "well she would say that" for much of it, and "who knows?" for the rest. If it is so desperately critical that we should care, maybe the onus is on the people who feel that, whether it is her lawyers, or whoever.... to make a compelling case. There has to be some minimal requirement for evidence, otherwise we end up just accepting as true every sob story from anybody who happens to fit the demographic we feel sympathy for, and tough luck for everybody who doesn't. It doesn't fill me with confidence when the case for me to care seems to be based on things that push me to feel sorry for her rather than evidence that she didn't do it, or reasonably felt she had no choice but to do it.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Guilty unless proven innocent beyond reasonable doubt?

A few here aren't dropping the gavel. Many are.

Can you figure out which is which?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

We aren't in court. There is no requirement for us to leap to any kind of conclusion. We are supposed to be sceptics. Sceptics default position is surely supposed doubt rather than outrage. For myself, I am content to say "well she would say that" for much of it, and "who knows?" for the rest. If it is so desperately critical that we should care, maybe the onus is on the people who feel that, whether it is her lawyers, or whoever.... to make a compelling case. There has to be some minimal requirement for evidence, otherwise we end up just accepting as true every sob story from anybody who happens to fit the demographic we feel sympathy for, and tough luck for everybody who doesn't. It doesn't fill me with confidence when the case for me to care seems to be based on things that push me to feel sorry for her rather than evidence that she didn't do it, or reasonably felt she had no choice but to do it.

I think you're grossly confused. Her, her lawyers, or anyone else doesn't need to make any case. The case is finished. She's sentenced. There will be no trial.

Hell, one poster didn't even know she had a court appointed attorney but is now chastising others for making things up, while saying "Who knows who's paying for that", which is obviously trying to paint her in a worse light for absolutely no reason at all.

I don't know if people know this but when you accept a plea bargain you have to explain your crime, how it happened, etc. What you tell the judge (who has read through police reports, attorney's submissions, etc.) can't just be whatever the **** you feel like. It's not a twitter account. Your reasoning and explanation for how and why the crime occurred has to lineup with the facts presented to the judge by both the police and the prosecutor.

This is basic ****, but now I'm being told that we can't believe what she said. Well, I mean, unless it's convenient with their pet theory.

Then we only get to selectively pick and choose what she says as truth while accusing the other side of doing the same thing!

Also, drop the skepticism rant. You're no more of a skeptic than anyone else around here. The "no tru skeptic" thing has been worn out, especially by you, long ago.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by plague311

I think you're grossly confused. Her, her lawyers, or anyone else doesn't need to make any case. The case is finished. She's sentenced. There will be no trial.

Indeed. I am aware that the case is pretty well over, but yet we seem to have a thread about this. Somebody is raising money. Somebody is organising. People are asking us to care and claiming some outrage has been done. Who ever those people are are the ones I would say should make their case.

Originally Posted by plague311

I don't know if people know this but when you accept a plea bargain you have to explain your crime, how it happened, etc. What you tell the judge (who has read through police reports, attorney's submissions, etc.) can't just be whatever the **** you feel like. It's not a twitter account. Your reasoning and explanation for how and why the crime occurred has to lineup with the facts presented to the judge by both the police and the prosecutor.

I don't doubt it, but if I am going to care and feel some terrible miscarriage of justice has been done.... there has to be some minimal threshold of evidence. Who ever is wanting people to contribute either needs to provide the evidence that convinced them, or rely on people donating based on emotion. If the appeal is based on emotion, it is not going to work on me, I will shake my head at the people who it does work on and it doesn't seem to me like it has any respectable place on a sceptic website.

Originally Posted by plague311

This is basic ****, but now I'm being told that we can't believe what she said. Well, I mean, unless it's convenient with their pet theory.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by plague311

Then we only get to selectively pick and choose what she says as truth while accusing the other side of doing the same thing!

Also, drop the skepticism rant. You're no more of a skeptic than anyone else around here. The "no tru skeptic" thing has been worn out, especially by you, long ago.

I suspect responding to this will not end well for me.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by plague311

This is basic ****, but now I'm being told that we can't believe what she said. Well, I mean, unless it's convenient with their pet theory.

Then we only get to selectively pick and choose what she says as truth while accusing the other side of doing the same thing!

I've already mentioned this, but you would think that in a "skeptics" forum, people would know the difference between these two things:

A) Things you say to cover your ass
B) Things you don't want to admit to, but have no choice

Option "A" includes, in this case, pretty much anything said to avoid a murder one rap, and should be treated with suspicion. Option "B" includes things like admitting to killing someone. Nobody is admitting to stabbing someone 30+ times in a rage unless they have no alternative. And If they do have to admit to a killing, they might just say, "I did it in a rage, without thought". Nobody can prove otherwise, and it conveniently makes a murder one charge unlikely to stick.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Indeed. I am aware that the case is pretty well over, but yet we seem to have a thread about this. Somebody is raising money. Somebody is organising. People are asking us to care and claiming some outrage has been done. Who ever those people are are the ones I would say should make their case.

I'm certainly not asking you to care. You came here voluntarily, you already did care. You chose to participate. If you don't like what you're reading, or feel it's not up to your standards, I encourage you to not participate. You're not contributing anything at all, you're just bitching other people aren't spoon feeding you information that you want or will accept. Why bother? Do you feel your opinion holds some weight that other people value? Weird.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I don't doubt it, but if I am going to care and feel some terrible miscarriage of justice has been done

Don't. It means nothing to the overall case or facts.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

there has to be some minimal threshold of evidence.

The minimum threshold of evidence I'm using is the same that has been accepted by the police, prosecutors, and judge. Feel free to make up some other goalpost though.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Who ever is wanting people to contribute either needs to provide the evidence that convinced them, or rely on people donating based on emotion.

That's what we call a "False Dichotomy". You not accepting information as evidence means nothing, but plenty of evidence has been shown. It also doesn't mean that the evidence is based on emotion. It only means you feel that way, which is an opinion. Nothing more.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If the appeal is based on emotion, it is not going to work on me,

I don't care.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I will shake my head at the people who it does work on and it doesn't seem to me like it has any respectable place on a sceptic website.

I don't care, and claiming to be a skeptic while using fallacies kind of belies your claim. As I said, you're absolutely no more of a skeptic around here than anyone else.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I suspect responding to this will not end well.

I think it went perfect.

If you don't believe what she says, don't. The fact that you think this:

Quote:

For myself, I am content to say "well she would say that" for much of it, and "who knows?" for the rest.

Is somehow a "Sceptics default position" pretty much sums everything up for me. This is handwaving away a statement by a victim, who also committed crimes, based on nothing. That's it. Her version of events in the plea bargain is accepted by the police, prosecutors and a judge. The evidence for her statements are in her favor, not the naysayers of this forum. No matter how skeptical they claim to be because with the above statement you're actually proving you're the polar opposite of a skeptic. You're someone who only accepts information they want to accept, never questioning their own biases or reasoning.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I've already mentioned this, but you would think that in a "skeptics" forum

At least you guys are consistent

Originally Posted by Warp12

people would know the difference between these two things:

A) Things you say to cover your ass
B) Things you don't want to admit to, but have no choice

Option "A" includes, in this case, pretty much anything said to avoid a murder one rap, and should be treated with suspicion. Option "B" includes things like admitting to killing someone. Nobody is admitting to stabbing someone 30+ times in a rage unless they have no alternative. And If they do have to admit to a killing, they might just say, "I did it in a rage, without thought". Nobody can prove otherwise, and it conveniently makes a murder one charge unlikely to stick.

I'll call bull ****, but I generally do on your posts because it's still ignoring the obvious fact that the prosecutors can also include their own statements surrounding the plea agreement. Given that they wanted significantly more time than what the judge was handing down, I assumed that they would have included anything in furtherance of that goal. You must just think they're lazy, stupid, or both I guess.

Anyway, that was a super awesome explanation of how you've rationalized handwaving away anything that you don't believe, while somehow trying to imply you're the ultimate skeptic. I noticed you and shuttit do that a lot. "Oh, you don't agree with what I'm saying, well, a TRUE skeptic would because they'd know how skeptical I am".

Seriously, get over it. This is just excuse making.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by plague311

I think you're grossly confused. Her, her lawyers, or anyone else doesn't need to make any case. The case is finished. She's sentenced. There will be no trial.

Hell, one poster didn't even know she had a court appointed attorney but is now chastising others for making things up, while saying "Who knows who's paying for that", which is obviously trying to paint her in a worse light for absolutely no reason at a'll.

Did you know a court will appoint a public defender, but not a defense team? Yet, as even you acknowledge by pluralizing "lawyers", she now has a team. Are they family/friends? Attorneys from a pro bono victims advocacy group? I dunno. But it is reasonably clear that she started with a public defender (who may very well still be lead counsel) as well as others. Get over your pissant gotchas.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by plague311

At least you guys are consistent



I'll call bull ****, but I generally do on your posts because it's still ignoring the obvious fact that the prosecutors can also include their own statements surrounding the plea agreement. Given that they wanted significantly more time than what the judge was handing down, I assumed that they would have included anything in furtherance of that goal. You must just think they're lazy, stupid, or both I guess.

Anyway, that was a super awesome explanation of how you've rationalized handwaving away anything that you don't believe, while somehow trying to imply you're the ultimate skeptic. I noticed you and shuttit do that a lot. "Oh, you don't agree with what I'm saying, well, a TRUE skeptic would because they'd know how skeptical I am".

Seriously, get over it. This is just excuse making.

...

[Skeptical Greg]

Has anyone actually looked at the Iowa law/s behind this restitution thing ?

it really doesn't matter what anyone here thinks about the good or bad of how things played out.

Otherwise, move to Iowa and start a movement..

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Did you know a court will appoint a public defender, but not a defense team?

LoL no, I didn't know that. Do you have something to back that up? Anything at all that says that a defendant will get an individual lawyer? I already linked to him, his title, and his linkedin showing his actual job. This just isn't true. I'm not sure why you even said it.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Yet, as even you acknowledge by pluralizing "lawyers", she now has a team.

Nope, some confusion here. She has always had more than 1 lawyer from what I can tell. I, personally, have had both situations. I've had an individual public attorney, and I've had my public attorney bring in a co-worker. I'll wait for you to support your claim though.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Are they family/friends?

Huh? Is who family and friends? No one was\is funding her legal defense. I have no clue at all where you got that from. I can find absolutely nothing supporting it at all.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Attorneys from a pro bono victims advocacy group?

The attorney that has been speaking on her behalf is a court appointed public defender. As is the other attorney, according to every news source I can possibly find. If she had a legal team then she wouldn't have a court appointed attorney. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by Thermal

I dunno.

Happens, we all learn something new every day.

Originally Posted by Thermal

But it is reasonably clear that she started with a public defender (who may very well still be lead counsel) as well as others. Get over your pissant gotchas.

I'll get over my pissant gotchas as soon as you provide evidence to support that court appointed attorneys can\do act as "lead counsel" while working with other attorneys from victim advocacy and the like. I've never heard of it. If you need\require a court appointed attorney it's because you can't afford, or do not have, your own counsel and can't get it. If someone, whomever that might be, provides you with an attorney then you are not in need of a public defender.

Any link, any evidence that shows that anything you've stated here (preferably directly related to this case) would be appreciated, but it won't happen because this situation doesn't happen.

I've gotten **** in this thread for not admitting that I'm wrong, and I actually did admit I was wrong. Why can't others do the same?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Has anyone actually looked at the Iowa law/s behind this restitution thing ?

it really doesn't matter what anyone here thinks about the good or bad of how things played out.

Otherwise, move to Iowa and start a movement..

As has been stated here several times. The law was followed, the punishment was in accordance to the laws in the state, and the judge had no choice but to include the restitution. None of that is being argued anymore. None of it.

No need to move though, Iowa themselves look to be trying to make some changes through the legislature.

Some people here disagree that she should have been charged in the first place, some disagree as to the charges, and some want her to get more. The same as in almost every thread that exists on this forum.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by plague311

I'm certainly not asking you to care. You came here voluntarily, you already did care. You chose to participate. If you don't like what you're reading, or feel it's not up to your standards, I encourage you to not participate. You're not contributing anything at all, you're just bitching other people aren't spoon feeding you information that you want or will accept. Why bother? Do you feel your opinion holds some weight that other people value? Weird.

I do not care whether she is guilty or not. This thread is interesting for the poor, emotionally driven positions people take, not for the case. There is far too little information about the case for that to be interesting or for there to be much of anything to talk about.

Originally Posted by plague311

Don't. It means nothing to the overall case or facts.

Of which there are far too few to form an opinion or get excited.

Originally Posted by plague311

The minimum threshold of evidence I'm using is the same that has been accepted by the police, prosecutors, and judge. Feel free to make up some other goalpost though.

Sure, unless somebody shows differently, the default assumption is that the court are correct, she is a murderer and potentially owes restitution. There doesn't seem to be remotely enough information available to second guess that. I'm not arguing against this. On what rational basis people are donating money to her, I can't imagine.

Originally Posted by plague311

That's what we call a "False Dichotomy". You not accepting information as evidence means nothing, but plenty of evidence has been shown. It also doesn't mean that the evidence is based on emotion. It only means you feel that way, which is an opinion. Nothing more.

Shown to who? Publicly? There seems to be woefully little information available beyond her story. Saying that it is on the people claiming she is the victim of a miscarriage of justice to prove it isn't a false dichotomy.

Originally Posted by plague311

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If the appeal is based on emotion, it is not going to work on me,

I don't care.

That much is obvious.

Originally Posted by plague311

I don't care, and claiming to be a skeptic while using fallacies kind of belies your claim. As I said, you're absolutely no more of a skeptic around here than anyone else.

I haven't used fallacies. Putting that to one side, I do not claim to be a sceptic. I think scepticism is incoherent. That said, I don't think discussing this further will work out.

Originally Posted by plague311

I think it went perfect.

Not what I meant.

Originally Posted by plague311

If you don't believe what she says, don't.

It's not a question of my disbelieving her. Who knows? It pretty much just comes down to her word. Unless we are credulous rubes we aren't going to just take this girls word for it.

Originally Posted by plague311

The fact that you think this:

Originally Posted by shuttlt

For myself, I am content to say "well she would say that" for much of it, and "who knows?" for the rest.

Is somehow a "Sceptics default position" pretty much sums everything up for me. This is handwaving away a statement by a victim, who also committed crimes, based on nothing. That's it. Her version of events in the plea bargain is accepted by the police, prosecutors and a judge. The evidence for her statements are in her favor, not the naysayers of this forum. No matter how skeptical they claim to be because with the above statement you're actually proving you're the polar opposite of a skeptic. You're someone who only accepts information they want to accept, never questioning their own biases or reasoning.

Yeah, I kind of think taking a very provisional attitude to such things is sceptical. There is no reason whatsoever to form a strong opinion on the case, least of all to invent stories for her as went on earlier in the thread. Look at the thread title, it was claimed as "self defence". That is not a sceptical reading of the original Guardian article.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by plague311

LoL no, I didn't know that. Do you have something to back that up? Anything at all that says that a defendant will get an individual lawyer?

Why yes, yes I do. Starting from the painfully obvious: both you and I have been Mirandized, I believe? Each of us more than a few times, and each probably more than all other posters here combined? You remember the words? "...you have the right to an attorney...if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you..." Remember those words (+/-), sailor? In the singular.

"Not good enough", you crow? Fine. Below is the Des Moines, Iowa Public Defenders Website. You'll note that it also refers to the State's obligation to appoint you an attorney (note the singular) again and again and again. At no point is an accused offered OJ's freaking Dream Team, nor the Iowan counterpart.

https://spd.iowa.gov/indigent-clients/faqs

Quote:

I already linked to him, his title, and his linkedin showing his actual job. This just isn't true. I'm not sure why you even said it.

Bull ****. You didn't link to anything. You know what a link is, skippy? You just typed in your own words without a link at all. You could have typed in that he was President of the Galactic ******* Federation.

However, Sheely is a legit Iowan public defender. Not that I ever contested that, of course. I acknowledged that Lewis was appointed a PD from the beginning, but as I am reading this, additional counsel was added on later. More below.

Quote:

Nope, some confusion here. She has always had more than 1 lawyer from what I can tell. I, personally, have had both situations. I've had an individual public attorney, and I've had my public attorney bring in a co-worker. I'll wait for you to support your claim though.

Oh Jesus Christ, after clutching your pearls because I offered personal experience (replying to a poster asking "have any of you..."), you are seriously going to throw up "Plague311's Anecdotal Experience"? Doesn't your hypocrisy make you feel sick sometimes?

You get appointed one by the court. That lawyer can bring in co-counsel, as long as the defendant and their families are not paying for it. That means other pro bono lawyers, or advocacy groups, or friends and families who have the relevant chops and offer to do grunt work.

Quote:

Huh? Is who family and friends? No one was\is funding her legal defense. I have no clue at all where you got that from. I can find absolutely nothing supporting it at all.

If you drop the childish line-by-line sniping and read that sentence in context, it will be quite clear.

Quote:

The attorney that has been speaking on her behalf is a court appointed public defender. As is the other attorney, according to every news source I can possibly find.

"The other attorney". There's a tell, getting vague instead of stating her name. Means you already know you are bull ************.

Her name is Magdalena Resse. She's a private practice partner in Cooper, Goedicke, Reimer, and Reese. Here's her greatest hits page (note her pic matches the one in the OP article, before you accuse me of linking some other Reese):

https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/50265...e-4273348.html

So you're up, now. Show where Reese has been court appointed, or in from the beginning, per the news sources you claim. You just claimed it, so no weaseling.

Quote:

If she had a legal team then she wouldn't have a court appointed attorney. It's that simple.

Of course you can, as long as you are not paying them. The PD can pull in as many recruits as they like. Not getting a dime in additional compensation for them, but free to do so.

For example, here is the list of public defenders in Des Moines. You'll note our boy Sheely appears three separate times. Guess who doesn't appear at all? Go on, guess.

https://trustoria.com/lawyer/Public-...es-Moines-IA-2

Now, it's likely that Reese is doing a little pro bono work in this case, as lawyers are expected to do. My guess is that she popped in later in the game as it became higher profile, without compensation. But I look forward to your evidence that she was court appointed.

Quote:

I'll get over my pissant gotchas as soon as you provide evidence to support that court appointed attorneys can\do act as "lead counsel" while working with other attorneys from victim advocacy and the like. I've never heard of it. If you need\require a court appointed attorney it's because you can't afford, or do not have, your own counsel and can't get it. If someone, whomever that might be, provides you with an attorney then you are not in need of a public defender.

Any link, any evidence that shows that anything you've stated here (preferably directly related to this case) would be appreciated, but it won't happen because this situation doesn't happen.

Done and done.

Quote:

I've gotten **** in this thread for not admitting that I'm wrong, and I actually did admit I was wrong. Why can't others do the same?

You've been demonstrably wrong on simple black and white factual matters. This one is a little grayer, because Iowa doesn't feel compelled to scream 'YOU GET ONLY ONE AND ONLY ONE COURT APPOINTED LAWYER, BITCHES!!!" for your personal benefit.

But all in, it doesn't even matter. You are just badgering for a gotcha. I was initially responding to a poster who said "what, does she have an expensive attorney who coached her?" My observation is that she seems to have some kind of additional counsel, probably unpaid/pro bono, and they would surely be coaching her, as is common practice.

After you pony up your proofs, can we drop this inane sidebar?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Cat Not Included

Have any of you people saying "she should have just walked out" ever actually, ya know, slept in close proximity to another person and tried to do something in the middle of the night without waking them?

Yes. My partner is a heavy sleeper. I sometimes struggle to sleep through the night. I do all kinds of things in the middle of the night while they sleep on, blissfully unaware. There may be some good arguments for why she shouldn't have just walked out, but this appeal to incredulity gets nowhere with me.

[pgwenthold]

This makes me think of Elizabeth Smart. She was first kidnapped and detained, but ultimately was "passively" held captive by Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee. Routinely raped, but she never fled. Even when authorities approached her in the library at one point (where she was with Mitchell and Barzee, with a veil covering her face "for religious reasons") and directly asked her if she was Elizabeth Smart, she didn't fess up. She was regularly out in public with them, and never said, "Hey, help me, I am being held against my will!"

The mindset of captivity is not simple or clearcut, and I really can't sit and judge.

I do wonder, at what point would it have been acceptable for her to kill her kidnappers, had she done so? Only while she was being raped? (hint: really hard to kill the rapist in that situation) In the first weeks when she was tied to a tree? Otherwise, it would be the same complaint: "She wasn't in imminent danger, and could have walked away at any time." Or could she go through with it when she gets to the point where she has had enough and has the courage to do something about it?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

This makes me think of Elizabeth Smart. She was first kidnapped and detained, but ultimately was "passively" held captive by Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee. Routinely raped, but she never fled. Even when authorities approached her in the library at one point (where she was with Mitchell and Barzee, with a veil covering her face "for religious reasons") and directly asked her if she was Elizabeth Smart, she didn't fess up. She was regularly out in public with them, and never said, "Hey, help me, I am being held against my will!"

The mindset of captivity is not simple or clearcut, and I really can't sit and judge.

I do wonder, at what point would it have been acceptable for her to kill her kidnappers, had she done so? Only while she was being raped? (hint: really hard to kill the rapist in that situation) In the first weeks when she was tied to a tree? Otherwise, it would be the same complaint: "She wasn't in imminent danger, and could have walked away at any time." Or could she go through with it when she gets to the point where she has had enough and has the courage to do something about it?

This is nothing like the Elizabeth Smart case. Obviously.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Warp12

This is nothing like the Elizabeth Smart case. Obviously.

Of course not.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by lionking

Of course not.

Absolutely. Why, we'd be just as sympathetic if it was a white boy who grew up with hardcore Nazi parents, then killed a black woman and stole her car, then went back home to the Nazis.

Right?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Thermal

*snipped for brevity*

I didn't see this post until now. My screen showed the thread already read.

Anyway, no that attorney wasn't even who I was thinking of. Paul White was actually who I was thinking of but I can say that just because she works for a law firm doesn't mean she isn't a contracted public attorney.

You're right though, all of that doesn't matter because your statement implied that someone was paying her legal representation, which obviously isn't true. Even now you've backtracked to "they could be doing it pro bono" thereby killing your implication that someone was paying for her defense and that would, for some reason, be suspicious. Which was what I've contested from the beginning.

What "black and white" facts have I gotten wrong? Your long rant about this woman and where she works doesn't even prove me wrong. At least 2 of her 3 attorneys are public defenders, and no one is "paying for her defense team". As is clear. Your implication was ********. The other thing that I, admittedly, got wrong, well...I admitted I got it wrong.

__________________________________________

With regard to this resembling Smart, I don't think it resembles the case that much but I know very, very little about it. I don't believe she was whored out by knife point to random people for a little bit of weed. I also don't think she killed anyone.

The truth behind this case is a young, vulnerable girl was taken advantage of and the behavior that she exhibits is weird to a bunch of grown men that have never had to deal with people who have been through this.

Defenders, attorneys, judges, etc. none of that really matters to the core of the case. She was trafficked, sexually. She was abused in almost every way, and, at the very worst, she snapped. I don't think she should have been charged, again, it's as simple as that. Sans the restitution, I think the sentence she got was fairly reasonable, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it or like it, as she shouldn't have had to deal with it all.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by plague311

With regard to this resembling Smart, I don't think it resembles the case that much but I know very, very little about it. I don't believe she was whored out by knife point to random people for a little bit of weed. I also don't think she killed anyone.

And no one said she was or did.

What I said that is that Smart was held captive and could have escaped any time but didn't, even though she had the opportunity to do so. The situations are similar in that respect, and that is the only respect in which I suggested it was.

My conclusion was that I am not in a position to judge the actions of someone being held captive. The case of Elizabeth Smart is another point to show that they are not always rational.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

And no one said she was or did.

What I said that is that Smart was held captive and could have escaped any time but didn't, even though she had the opportunity to do so. The situations are similar in that respect, and that is the only respect in which I suggested it was.

My conclusion was that I am not in a position to judge the actions of someone being held captive. The case of Elizabeth Smart is another point to show that they are not always rational.

Oh, ok. Maybe I misread the intent, I was a bit pre-occupied.

In that regards, yes. It is similar to Smart and, honestly, thousands if not millions of other cases like that.

While Brown was whoring her out to others, he was also feeding her, giving her a place to live and that's more than she had gotten anywhere else. I'm sure that, on some level, despite him treating her like **** she said she considered him her boyfriend, so there was some emotional connection. I mean, she was 15 and perpetually abused, it's doubtful she had any clue at all what a real, loving relationship involved.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

And no one said she was or did.

What I said that is that Smart was held captive and could have escaped any time but didn't, even though she had the opportunity to do so. The situations are similar in that respect, and that is the only respect in which I suggested it was.

My conclusion was that I am not in a position to judge the actions of someone being held captive. The case of Elizabeth Smart is another point to show that they are not always rational.

She wasn't being held captive by Brooks. That is not her claim. She stated she "suddenly realized" she had been raped again (she had apparently passed out from drinking and smoking weed?). When she realized this, by her own words, she grabbed a knife and started stabbing him in a thoughtless rage. Apparently 30+ times, while he was sleeping.

Then she took a shower, stole his car, and drove home.

As I say, nothing like the Smart case. You were trying to imply that Smart being held captive was like this. No, nothing like this.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Warp12

She wasn't being held captive by Brooks. That is not her claim. She stated she "suddenly realized" she had been raped again (she had apparently passed out from drinking and smoking weed?). When she realized this, by her own words, she grabbed a knife and started stabbing him in a thoughtless rage. Apparently 30+ times, while he was sleeping.

Then she took a shower, stole his car, and drove home.

As I say, nothing like the Smart case. You were trying to imply that Smart being held captive was like this. No, nothing like this.

Well, that's not the only thing she said. She also said:

Quote:

In my mind I felt that I wasn't safe and I felt that I was in danger, which resulted in the acts. But it doesn't take away from the fact that a crime was committed.

But at least check, I think we aren't using that statement because....reasons? Right? Just the "rage" part is the only part we can use? As if that, for some reason, isn't a normal reaction to being raped multiple times?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by plague311

Well, that's not the only thing she said. She also said:



But at least check, I think we aren't using that statement because....reasons? Right? Just the "rage" part is the only part we can use? As if that, for some reason, isn't a normal reaction to being raped multiple times?

Her confession says she killed him in a thoughtless rage. It doesn't say she was being held captive, nor does your added quote claim that. Of course, being a prostitute is a dangerous biz, coerced or not. But it seems to me that the main person she has expressed bringing a sense of danger, was her pimp. Not Brooks. She just wigged out and channeled Jason Voorhees on Brooks, by her own admission.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by plague311

I didn't see this post until now. My screen showed the thread already read.

Anyway, no that attorney wasn't even who I was thinking of. Paul White was actually who I was thinking of but I can say that just because she works for a law firm doesn't mean she isn't a contracted public attorney.

You're right though, all of that doesn't matter because your statement implied that someone was paying her legal representation, which obviously isn't true. Even now you've backtracked to "they could be doing it pro bono" thereby killing your implication that someone was paying for her defense and that would, for some reason, be suspicious. Which was what I've contested from the beginning.

I can't believe you are still not getting this. Another poster said "what, did she have an expensive attorney who coached her?" And I responded with a flippant "no word on who's paying them". You seriously still don't get that it was a reference to an "expensive" attorney, and that a defendant with a PD wouldn't even have paid counsel?

Still awaiting those news reports you claimed to have seen that Reese or White or any other attorneys (save Sheely) were appointed by the court to provide additional counsel to Lewis.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Her confession says she killed him in a thoughtless rage. It doesn't say she was being held captive, nor does your added quote claim that. Of course, being a prostitute is a dangerous biz, coerced or not. But it seems to me that the main person she has expressed bringing a sense of danger, was her pimp. Not Brooks. She just wigged out and channeled Jason Voorhees on Brooks, by her own admission.

Sure, sure.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Still awaiting those news reports you claimed to have seen that Reese or White or any other attorneys (save Sheely) were appointed by the court to provide additional counsel to Lewis.

Since I've never made the claim I'd get real ******* comfortable.