This made me laught

[HHusky]

What's sickening is what Stevens got away with, and your pal Norm enabled some of that.

One uw football fans wants to use the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution to excuse misconduct. That's also pretty sick.

My pal Norm made a call based on the case he had. You cite me too the statements of career prosecutors who also conclude a jury would see reasonable doubt. You nonetheless conclude—based on your expertise at something, possibly—that Norm Maleng (of all people) sold his soul to protect Stevens. You might want to check with your doctor.

 

[Coug90]

Reasonable doubt is the hurdle. “Unlikely” makes Maleng’s point.

We all know what reasonable doubt is you don’t have to be Perry Mason to get that.

Fact: I was a juror on a sexual assault case that had MUCH less evidence than this...before #metoo. The accused was found not guilty, but it was still prosecuted, and the prosecuting attorney clearly thought there would be a conviction when they talked to some of the jurors after the trial ended.

I get you are sticking up for someone you know, colleague, whatever. Maleng, like most of us, probably spent 95% of his career/personal life doing things the right way with integrity. But he wasn’t perfect...He abused his position of power to keep UW football players on the field rather than prosecuting them for their crimes. Period. That’s all people are saying, if you are going to defend that, and say you’d be ok having your own daughter subjected to a sexual assault without the ability to get justice, that’s your problem. But not sure why you’re expecting anyone here to agree with you.

 

[dgibbons]

My pal Norm made a call based on the case he had. You cite me too the statements of career prosecutors who also conclude a jury would see reasonable doubt. You nonetheless conclude—based on your expertise at something, possibly—that Norm Maleng (of all people) sold his soul to protect Stevens. You might want to check with your doctor.

Cite me to another prosecutor saying " "It seems highly unlikely that the victim would have consented to anal intercourse with the suspect in a fraternity alley,” the letter said." in a decline letter explaining why the decision was made not to prosecute.

 

[HHusky]

We all know what reasonable doubt is you don’t have to be Perry Mason to get that.

Fact: I was a juror on a sexual assault case that had MUCH less evidence than this...before #metoo. The accused was found not guilty, but it was still prosecuted, and the prosecuting attorney clearly thought there would be a conviction when they talked to some of the jurors after the trial ended.

I get you are sticking up for someone you know, colleague, whatever. Maleng, like most of us, probably spent 95% of his career/personal life doing things the right way with integrity. But he wasn’t perfect...He abused his position of power to keep UW football players on the field rather than prosecuting them for their crimes. Period. That’s all people are saying, if you are going to defend that, and say you’d be ok having your own daughter subjected to a sexual assault without the ability to get justice, that’s your problem. But not sure why you’re expecting anyone here to agree with you.

Did it ever occur to you that you didn’t see all the evidence that led the prosecution of your case to move forward? And that’s without reference to the disparity in resources when the state decides it can get some public defender to get his client to plead to a lesser charge.

And I have a son and daughters. I’m guessing this reasonable doubt thingy might not be so difficult for your colleagues if it was their son we were talking about.

And while none of us is perfect, the theory that Maleng decided to compromise his principles for Stevens requires some plausible, fact based explanation. None is offered.

 

[HHusky]

Cite me to another prosecutor saying " "It seems highly unlikely that the victim would have consented to anal intercourse with the suspect in a fraternity alley,” the letter said." in a decline letter explaining why the decision was made not to prosecute.

The article(s) linked quote(s) other prosecutors. One has been the DA here since Maleng died.

 

[dgibbons]

The article(s) linked quote(s) other prosecutors. One has been the DA here since Maleng died.

So please go ahead and quote another prosecutor that said "It seems highly unlikely that the victim would have consented to anal intercourse with the suspect in a fraternity alley,” the letter said." I'll wait.

 

[Coug90]

Did it ever occur to you that you didn’t see all the evidence that led the prosecution of your case to move forward? And that’s without reference to the disparity in resources when the state decides it can get some public defender to get his client to plead to a lesser charge.

And I have a son and daughters. I’m guessing this reasonable doubt thingy might not be so difficult for your colleagues if it was their son we were talking about.

Yeah it did occur to me. That there’s more in this case than I saw in 3 days of trial as a juror.

Nice spin but I don’t sympathize with rapists and never will so I won’t even respond to your second part.

 

[etowncoug]

Did it ever occur to you that you didn’t see all the evidence that led the prosecution of your case to move forward? And that’s without reference to the disparity in resources when the state decides it can get some public defender to get his client to plead to a lesser charge.

And I have a son and daughters. I’m guessing this reasonable doubt thingy might not be so difficult for your colleagues if it was their son we were talking about.

If my son anal raped a drunk girl in an alley, I'd accompany him to court and sit behind him while he plead guilty.

No fair minded person thinks Jerramy Stevens didn't do this. Yes, no one has a video of Jerremy Stevens holding his ID on camera while raping a passed out girl saying "I'm Jerramy Stevens, I'm raping a passed on girl. She totally doesn't want this and I don't care". But that isn't the standard for beyond a reasonable doubt.

A reasonable person could conclude Stevens was guilty of the crime based on the evidence. They might not, but people have been getting convicted with similar evidence against them for years. You have DNA, you have witness statements saying she was severely inebriated, and there is evidence of sexual contact.

Hell, it's worth prosecuting even if you don't get a conviction as a warning to guys to not be rapists.

 

[HHusky]

Yeah it did occur to me. That there’s more in this case than I saw in 3 days of trial as a juror.

Nice spin but I don’t sympathize with rapists and never will so I won’t even respond to your second part.

If you’d simply assumed the accused in your case was a rapist, you would have saved yourself a lot of time.

 

[HHusky]

If my son anal raped a drunk girl in an alley, I'd accompany him to court and sit behind him while he plead guilty.

No fair minded person thinks Jerramy Stevens didn't do this. Yes, no one has a video of Jerremy Stevens holding his ID on camera while raping a passed out girl saying "I'm Jerramy Stevens, I'm raping a passed on girl. She totally doesn't want this and I don't care". But that isn't the standard for beyond a reasonable doubt.

A reasonable person could conclude Stevens was guilty of the crime based on the evidence. They might not, but people have been getting convicted with similar evidence against them for years. You have DNA, you have witness statements saying she was severely inebriated, and there is evidence of sexual contact.

Hell, it's worth prosecuting even if you don't get a conviction as a warning to guys to not be rapists.

If only jurors could just assume the truth of the charges, as you have. So much more efficient!

 

[etowncoug]

If only jurors could just assume the truth of the charges, as you have. So much more efficient!

It would be nice if this case went before a jury, but crooked Norm Maleng made sure rapist Jerramy Stevens never had his day in court. Just win baby!

 

[Coug90]

If you’d simply assumed the accused in your case was a rapist, you would have saved yourself a lot of time.

If only prosecutors threw every case out of court we’d all save a lot on our taxes!

 

[HHusky]

It would be nice if this case went before a jury, but crooked Norm Maleng made sure rapist Jerramy Stevens never had his day in court. Just win baby!

You’re all class.

 

[HHusky]

If only prosecutors threw every case out of court we’d all save a lot on our taxes!

Prosecutors make decisions not to prosecute every day. Why? They could save a lot of effort referring these decisions to anonymous message boards.

 

[Coug90]

Prosecutors make decisions not to prosecute every day. Why? They could save a lot of effort referring these decisions to anonymous message boards.

Naw it works much better when they are able to make those decisions based on their own biases and agendas.

 

[dgibbons]

If you’d simply assumed the accused in your case was a rapist, you would have saved yourself a lot of time.

We can "assume" that they had sexual contact based on the DNA evidence. Since she sued Stevens and others in the civil case, she seems adamant it wasn't consensual.

I'd love to hear what Jerramy had to say, you know to see if he lied and then came clean like he did when he beat the crap out of that kid in high school. Seems like he learned to keep his mouth shut once the cops show up.

 

[fingerdisco]

She wasn’t ever hospitalized. Whether excessive drinking left her incapacitated or simply uninhibited would have been a question the defense would have used to obtain an almost certain acquittal. You don’t have to believe JS was innocent to recognize that he wouldn’t have been convicted.

Let me reword that: when she went to THE HOSPITAL to be examined for being RAPED, the doctor's examination revealed a "lacerated anus". That sounds very pleasant and no doubt would leave many with doubts as to whether she consented to having her anus torn.

 

[HHusky]

Let me reword that: when she went to THE HOSPITAL to be examined for being RAPED, the doctor's examination revealed a "lacerated anus". That sounds very pleasant and no doubt would leave many with doubts as to whether she consented to having her anus torn.

Even you understand the problem with your logic here.

 

[HHusky]

We can "assume" that they had sexual contact based on the DNA evidence. Since she sued Stevens and others in the civil case, she seems adamant it wasn't consensual.

I'd love to hear what Jerramy had to say, you know to see if he lied and then came clean like he did when he beat the crap out of that kid in high school. Seems like he learned to keep his mouth shut once the cops show up.

There is no dispute they had sexual contact. Jerramy is a thug and a creep. The prosecutor still has to prove a rape charge.

 

[dgibbons]

There is no dispute they had sexual contact. Jerramy is a thug and a creep. The prosecutor still has to prove a rape charge.

Thanks for that sterling analysis. Right up there with "there could be reasonable doubt."

 

[Loyal Coug]

There is no dispute they had sexual contact. Jerramy is a thug and a creep. The prosecutor still has to prove a rape charge.

Thanks for that sterling analysis. Right up there with "there could be reasonable doubt."

gib - nice to see we can agree on at least one topic. HH please just shut up. My dead dog could probably have gotten a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in this one. You are coming off like a complete a-hole and jerk here. Give it a rest.

 

[Stretch 74]

Edited to say that this was meant as response to hhusky's post as follows:
"There is no dispute they had sexual contact. Jerramy is a thug and a creep. The prosecutor still has to prove a rape charge."
(I got it wrong with the format that I have not used since it has been so long since I posted here.)

That should be relatively simple to do. As you say, there is no doubt they had sexual contact, which comes from the DNA evidence. I recall Maleng saying that the victim was drugged or drunk and thus unable to provide proper testimony. But here is the deal-Washington State law says that if someone is impaired they are unable to give consent or legally sign a contract. So with the DNA evidence of sexual contact and WA law that says someone under the influence cannot give consent, it should be a slam dunk. That is something that you DO take to a grand jury, at least.

Do you remember Mary Kay LeTourneau and her 13 or 14 year old boyfriend? She was found guilty in a trail. Later she became pregnant again while Vilii (sp?) was still underage, but they decided not to prosecute. That was wrong to do, and would never happen if it was an underage girl. Similar to the Stevens case, it would have been a simple prosecution-present the DNA evidence showing that the baby's parents were Mary Kay and Vilii and rest your case. Open and shut.

I used to do a lot of posting and following on the dawgman.com board, and remember clearly all the arguments back and forth on this issue back then. There were 3-5 guys that posted saying what a travesty it was that JS was let off, and of course they took a lot of crap from guys like you that would defend the husky program no matter what the facts were. These posters were all closely tied in to the Seattle police and/or justice system. They were guys that had access to see the files, they had intimate knowledge of the evidence and the investigation, and they were absolutely furious that the charges were dropped. They said that there was overwhelming evidence against him, more than they had seen in most cases that went through the system. I gave their input a lot of credence due to what they knew, and their stated ties to the system, much more credence than the sycophants that only wanted to protect the program.

The reality is that Maleng should have recused himself from the case entirely and turned over the responsibility for making the decision to Snohomish or Pierce County to eliminate ANY appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest. And given that Maleng had uw degrees as both an undergrad and graduate, along with being a Tyee Club member, he most certainly had conflicts of interest. Given the record of husky crimes that were never prosecuted over the years, it becomes obvious to outside observers that the fix was in for Norm Maleng when it came to husky football players.

 

[CougEd]

gib - nice to see we can agree on at least one topic. HH please just shut up. My dead dog could probably have gotten a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in this one. You are coming off like a complete a-hole and jerk here. Give it a rest.

A couple of thoughts...how many cases of bad Husky football player behavior went unpunished? I have to be clear to separate out the Stevens case vs all the other cases that seemed to disappear under Maleng's watch. Rape has always been a he said /she said situation.

If Stevens did what he did back then and it was today,and if the prosecutor didn't bring charges there would be hell to pay. It is a different era. I would say this about the Stevens case I think he was hammered and I think she was probably given a date rape drug. And I think because her memory is fuzzy it might be difficult to prove. If they brought it to trial would he have been convicted back when it happened? Look no further than the Kavanaugh hearings. I found the Blasey Ford very credible. In part because I know woman who suffered a similar fate and blocked out details that came to the forefront 20 years later. Do I think Kavanaugh sober would have ever done anything like that? Nope. Do I believe he was hammered and did what Ford accused him of? Yep. The only reason I bring that up while the set of facts may be different, there are people of all walks of life that could view it entirely different. I know people on this board view it different than I. Do I think Stevens was guilty? Yep. Do i think if he went to trial that 12 jurors would have seen it the same way with the victims impaired memory? Nope.

Now, that doesn't mean Maleng wasn't in the pocket of the UW. I would love to know how many arrests where made and how many times those arrests simply got buried and were either dropped or plead to a much lesser charge.

I have always felt this way about crime and punishment, it is a double edge sword. We have video of a football player who threw a hay-maker breaking a guys jaw and what happened to the player? Football means too much to communities. Look how active Michael Baumgartner got involved in several cases of the football players. Has he done that for others? Regardless of what the police and the courts decide to do, the conference (not the individual schools) need to be the arbitrator of justice.

 

[Coug95man2]

Edited to say that this was meant as response to hhusky's post as follows:
"There is no dispute they had sexual contact. Jerramy is a thug and a creep. The prosecutor still has to prove a rape charge."
(I got it wrong with the format that I have not used since it has been so long since I posted here.)

That should be relatively simple to do. As you say, there is no doubt they had sexual contact, which comes from the DNA evidence. I recall Maleng saying that the victim was drugged or drunk and thus unable to provide proper testimony. But here is the deal-Washington State law says that if someone is impaired they are unable to give consent or legally sign a contract. So with the DNA evidence of sexual contact and WA law that says someone under the influence cannot give consent, it should be a slam dunk. That is something that you DO take to a grand jury, at least.

Do you remember Mary Kay LeTourneau and her 13 or 14 year old boyfriend? She was found guilty in a trail. Later she became pregnant again while Vilii (sp?) was still underage, but they decided not to prosecute. That was wrong to do, and would never happen if it was an underage girl. Similar to the Stevens case, it would have been a simple prosecution-present the DNA evidence showing that the baby's parents were Mary Kay and Vilii and rest your case. Open and shut.

I used to do a lot of posting and following on the dawgman.com board, and remember clearly all the arguments back and forth on this issue back then. There were 3-5 guys that posted saying what a travesty it was that JS was let off, and of course they took a lot of crap from guys like you that would defend the husky program no matter what the facts were. These posters were all closely tied in to the Seattle police and/or justice system. They were guys that had access to see the files, they had intimate knowledge of the evidence and the investigation, and they were absolutely furious that the charges were dropped. They said that there was overwhelming evidence against him, more than they had seen in most cases that went through the system. I gave their input a lot of credence due to what they knew, and their stated ties to the system, much more credence than the sycophants that only wanted to protect the program.

The reality is that Maleng should have recused himself from the case entirely and turned over the responsibility for making the decision to Snohomish or Pierce County to eliminate ANY appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest. And given that Maleng had uw degrees as both an undergrad and graduate, along with being a Tyee Club member, he most certainly had conflicts of interest. Given the record of husky crimes that were never prosecuted over the years, it becomes obvious to outside observers that the fix was in for Norm Maleng when it came to husky football players.

Dang, dude. You need to post more often.

 

[Coug90]

Dang, dude. You need to post more often.

No shit. Mic drop!

 

[HHusky]

Given the record of husky crimes that were never prosecuted over the years, it becomes obvious to outside observers that the fix was in for Norm Maleng when it came to husky football players.

What “record of Husky crimes that were never prosecuted “?

 

[Coug90]

What “record of Husky crimes that were never prosecuted “?

Pick a number between 1-99 from the 2000 UW roster and you’re likely to get lucky.

 

[HHusky]

Do I think Stevens was guilty? Yep. Do i think if he went to trial that 12 jurors would have seen it the same way with the victims impaired memory? Nope.
.

Put another way: probably guilty. Is that enough to convict under our laws? No.

 

[HHusky]

Pick a number between 1-99 from the 2000 UW roster and you’re likely to get lucky.

Anyone else want to duck the question?

 

[Coug90]

Put another way: probably guilty. Is that enough to convict under our laws? No.

The question wasn’t to convict it was to prosecute. Which is where Maleng refused to do his job when it came to his purple and gold heroes. We are ALL aware not every case that goes to trial gets a conviction.

 

[HHusky]

2 things, mutt.

1. Was Norm your Dad, or what?
2. Feel free to go away. You are perpetuating this thread with your crap.

1. That’s a cop out.
2. Reading threads is voluntary.

 

[HHusky]

The question wasn’t to convict it was to prosecute. Which is where Maleng refused to do his job when it came to his purple and gold heroes. We are ALL aware not every case that goes to trial gets a conviction.

The Prosecutors Office also has a budget. I’m surprised I’d have to explain why DAs don’t like to spend resources on crappy cases.

 

[Coug90]

The Prosecutors Office also has a budget. I’m surprised I’d have to explain why DAs don’t like to spend resources on crappy cases.

We all admire your pluck dude. I’m sure everyone here has a good buddy they’d defend who did some stupid self serving shit, whether personally or professionally - so rest assured you’ve more than done your buddy duty. Nobody else here was friends with Norm and nobody’s going to agree with your arguments. Might as well drop it and let this die.

 

[HHusky]

We all admire your pluck dude. I’m sure everyone here has a good buddy they’d defend who did some stupid self serving shit, whether personally or professionally - so rest assured you’ve more than done your buddy duty. Nobody else here was friends with Norm and nobody’s going to agree with your arguments. Might as well drop it and let this die.

Funny story: I didn’t bring it up in the first place.

 

[kougkurt]

Funny story: I didn’t bring it up in the first place.

Yes but you can let it die.

 

[HHusky]

Yes but you can let it die.

You go first. I’ll follow.

 

[Coug95man2]

You go first. I’ll follow.

Sounds like a Husky. Can't lead. Must follow.

Got it.

 

[kayak15]

What “record of Husky crimes that were never prosecuted “?

Uh, the "hit and run" by Stevens on I-90 comes immediately to mind.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Anyone else want to duck the question?

Clearly, the Ducks are still in yo' head!

 

[kayak15]

H, unlike some of the others on the board I enjoy some of your posts but you are frantically flailing the dead horse on this one.

Yes, 'reasonable doubt' is understood by us all but Maleng bent over backwards to find it. Like another poster, I also served on a rape case and we all voted for acquittal despite the accused being a complete sociopath and most likely guilty.

They couldn't afford to try the case? Oh, please, we're talking about Seattle. Those people will throw money at anything remotely worthwhile.

Maleng was highly regarded by other attorneys and I accept that he was competent at his job. That's nice. Hitler liked his dog and I suspect that dog returned the affection. Others in the inner clique must have liked him too. Didn't make him a nice man. The families of the alleged victim certainly do not hold the late Norm Maleng in such respect. People can be perfectly sociable and nice most of the time and assholes on occasion. When the uw's football players had a legal problem, dear old Norm fell into the latter category.

Old enough to remember Charley Carroll? I do. Another King County Prosecutor, once removed from Maleng. Must have been a competent attorney to have been elected and he may well have had lots of friends. Big Franky Colacurcio certainly liked him. Crooked as a dog's hind leg. Whores and gambling devices openly displayed on the sidewalks. Under where the monorail starts in the middle of downtown Seattle there was a card room with doors wide open to the public. Real classy city in those days. The legal fraternity liked Maleng? Not impressed.

Someone- there have been so many posts that I cannot remember them all- pointed out the conflict of interest. Maleng should have recused himself.

Maleng chose not to try the case despite the opinion of the police familiar with the incident and then altered their finding in his presentation after declining to prosecute. Don't give us his "Well, I'm in charge here and I know more about it than you do." crap. Send it to a jury and let them decide.

As far as reasonable doubt is concerned, can we say that Maleng was a go-to fixer for the uw's football team? Not me. I will give you that point. But considering 'preponderance of evidence' as needed in civil cases, he is assuredly guilty of being one of the primary enablers of the team's worst moral failures. And that is a slam dunk. He is dead and perhaps we should not speak ill of the dead but while he was alive he had a glaring spot of moral deficiency. Preponderance of evidence only of course.

I could go on but unlike some others, I do not cherish flogging dead horses.