While a wealthy rapist walks, nobody thinks of the real victims – the AG office lawyers
The Delaware Bar association and others will tell you – the AG office lawyers are the true victims in the “du pont heir will not fare will in prison” case. They are hamstrung when trying to convict wealthy people because the wealthy people can hire lawyers. (Lawyers from the very best firms that the AG office lawyers may hope to join in a year or so.) They also have to contend with the fact that they have a boss that leaves the trickiest decisions most fraught with huge downsides entirely to them.
How can we expect the AG office lawyers to prosecute a case they may lose? Obviously we can’t. The AG office lawyers in this case were facing a lose/lose situation. Either they prosecute the rich guy and likely lose because they are utterly outclassed by the defense lawyers and the child rapist goes free, our they cut a ludicrously lenient deal that allows the child rapist to go free. Obviously in that situation, you cut a deal.
If you’re of a conspiratorial bent, this all looks like a shady cover-up. Rich defendant, revolving door attorneys, last-minute plea deals… cue the brooding theme music and time-lapse photography.
I, however, am not of such a mind. Not because I’m not cynical enough—rather, because I am too cynical. I think that to lay this case at the feet of a few bad guys is to miss the wider injustice that this case really represents. This case wasn’t a few villains (or incompetent judges) thwarting the justice system. This was the justice system itself.
Richards got his plea deal because he had good lawyers, one of whom has indiscreetly commented that “it was [a] more than reasonable, an enlightened plea offer.” Of course, he had them because he was rich, but also because he was privileged, white, and above all connected. And those lawyers produced a lot of documents and sowed a lot of doubt. This would’ve been a hard case that might’ve ended in a loss. The prosecutors folded.
The problem isn’t one rich guy buying his way out of the system. The problem is the system itself, underfunded by conservatives and the tough-on-crime crowd, and thus at the mercy of lawyers able to play the game with their full attention. Prosecutors, public defenders—none of them have the resources to be able to focus like a good criminal defense team can. It’s affluenza, alright—but the entire system is afflicted with it.
McConnel, the deputy attorney general who approved the plea deal, told the Wilmington News Journal that these cases “are extremely complicated and difficult and we strive to do justice in each and every case to the best of our ability given the facts and circumstances presented; That sometimes results in a resolution that is less than what we would want.”
That’s an understatement.
“but also because he was privileged, white, and above all connected.”
It doesn’t always have to be about race. A rich black person can also be connected, and have the ability to hire high priced lawyers.
So, as usual, no comments on the actual points?
I was glad to see Kirk smacked down that weak shit by Barrish claiming that the earlier case was only made public recently. The case file had been sitting in the courthouse for six years. It was listed on the docket and calendar. Anyone could have walked in and gotten the details. Just because no one sent out a press release doesn’t mean it was secret. If the NJ had been doing its job in 2008, we would have known about this then.
I am wondering about whether a transcript of the hearing and in-chambers discussions was ever prepared. That would be fascinating to read. Anyone know how long court reporters have to hold on to their records?
SussexWatcher – Why is the reporting timeline so important to Kirk and other defenders of this outcome? Perhaps because this outcome is so indefensible that its defenders need to clutch at any available looking straw. The reporting timeline doesn’t change anything. It is a red herring.
It’s an important factual error. The case was not kept secret or made public only recently.
That point doesn’t tear down the fundamental argument of the critics, but does clarify that court cases are generally not hidden. The broader public might not understand that.
SW wrote:
“The case file had been sitting in the courthouse for six years. It was listed on the docket and calendar. Anyone could have walked in and gotten the details. Just because no one sent out a press release doesn’t mean it was secret.”
Ri-i-i-ght. How would anyone have even known about the case other than by walking in on a whim to look something up, and being surprised by this?
This AG is quoted in his own press releases hailing the arrest of someone looking at bad pictures on his computer. And not a peep about a child rapist going free.
Please. Based on his own stated priorities, this is the LAST case he wouldn’t comment on. Or know anything about.
“If the NJ had been doing its job in 2008, we would have known about this then.”
Yeah, but what was going on in 2008?…. Hmm….what did they know, and when did they know it?
Ahh, just kidding….but not really.
All cases with hearings are listed in public calendars posted online. Anyone monitoring them would have seen his name and the charges. Whether or not they would known who he was is another question entirely. But to claim that this case was not public until recently is to lie. That’s my point.
I’m not getting into the whole Beau Biden stuff. That’s your obsession, not mine. The AG doesn’t run the courts.
The points concerning the delay in reporting this sordid episode are valid.
Once upon a time, when the NJ could stake a claim to being Delaware’s “newspaper of record,” reporters and news assistants would walk from their office on Orange Street over to the Public Building and secure lists of grand jury indictments and Superior Court sentencings. Reporters and editors would review the lists and decide which cases merited stories — and, whether there was a story or not, the lists were actually printed in the paper.
Indictments are public records, and so are sentencings. What has changed is how they are reported. Had this case been reported six years ago, the outrage would have been as great then as it is now. But what has happened over time — in part because of the shrinkage of newspaper editorial staffing — is that the official records are not checked with the same diligence and reporters have become more dependent on the PR guys in the AG’s office who help set the newspaper’s reporting agenda by deciding which cases will become the subject of news releases.
And that leads to this breathless reporting about how this case went unnoticed for so long, and what a travesty it is that Beau’s hagiographers neglected to publicize a case that had such a sorry outcome. I’m no fan of Beau’s but I’m not going to blame his office for not putting out a news release that would not have been favorable to his department. Why should anyone expect him to do so?
Sure, we can say that this was a case whose outcome was concealed … but if the media functioned today as it did in the ’70s and ’80s, it’s far less likely that the details of this case would have been kept quiet for so long. And, if you want to get into the realm of woulda-coulda-shoulda speculation, if the first incident had been reported in a timely fashion, it is conceivable that everyone in the criminal justice system would have been more attuned to the sensitivity of the Richards matter, and that might have led to a different scenario playing out with regard to the alleged abuse of his second child.
“The case was not kept secret or made public only recently.”
So what? That’s not what has people outraged.
The point about “making it public” is that Biden’s office brags about every arrest for kiddie-porn pictures, but now claims to know nothing about this case. Maybe he’d know about it if his staff had prepared a press release when it happened.
Last time I checked, Richard Korn had not been convicted of anything. But his picture and the charges against him got big-time media play.
I get your point. I don’t get why you keep making it.
The bigger point here is that the AG’s office has to be willing to try DIFFICULT cases as well as the easy cases. There are a lot of reasons why they want to avoid the difficult ones and stick to the easy ones – but they need to at least try to bring some of the difficult ones to a jury.
SW: I wrote that before your last comment. What you say is true, though you should understand that this situation was helped along when police reports were exempted from public view (some point in the ’80s, but I don’t remember exactly when). Until then, we used to look at them ourselves. Now all media get only the information the police agencies release.
The days you recall are 40 years gone. When I started at TNJ in ’80 there were three people assigned to the courts. Now there’s one. Even into the ’90s, three people covered state government in Dover. Now there’s one. Et cetera.
Geezer: The courts now post calendars online, making them easier to check now than in the days of which you speak. Also, the NJ has two state government reporters in Dover, not one. Police reports have nothing to do with this court case and Barrish’s error.
Other than that, I agree with everything you say.
What’s Barrish’s error?
SW: The police reports don’t have direct bearing on the court agate the paper used to print, but I point it out because the newspaper put up very little fight against taking those records off-line.
My point in bringing it up is that getting rid of the agate didn’t bother management much, so it was no surprise that they let all that stuff slide when they had to choose between being the “paper of record” and higher profits. One of the many executive editors back in the ’90s actually said the newspaper should not be the paper of record for Delaware any more. And so it’s not.
The error was in his third paragraph: “Richards’ 2009 rape case became public this month after attorneys for his ex-wife Tracy filed a lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the abuse of his daughter.”
The case has been public for years, not a month. What he should have written was “We just noticed this case after several years of cutbacks and penny-pinching …”
At any rate…the AG’s office has to be willing to try DIFFICULT cases as well as the easy cases. There are a lot of reasons why they want to avoid the difficult ones (too cozy with the defense, might lose, too much work) and stick to the easy ones – but they need to at least try to bring some of the difficult ones to a jury or we’ll end up with travesties like this.
Gotcha. Though I would wager that an editor, not Barrish, actually wrote that.
They could have avoided it by saying that the case created controversy, rather than “became public,” when the lawsuit was filed.
If there’s one thing you learn editing on deadline, it’s how to make fudge.
Not to minimize Beau’s role here, but was he even in the state when this plea bargain happened? It appears that he was in Iraq from October 2008 to September 2009. When was the plea bargain actually completed?
LG: That’s a fair point. The timing indicates that at least some of the negotiating went on while Biden was in Iraq.
Still, his handlers clearly fear the implications. The leak to Barrish had to come from somewhere.
What leak? The civil lawsuit was filed and spotted, the previous case was looked up, and the judge’s ruling unearthed. Easy story, no heavy lifting involved. All there in the court files.
Oh, I have suspected that the ex-wife is the source. She is a woman scorned and the Mother of the victims. She also would have had intimate knowledge of the proceedings.
In theory, she would have been consulted before the AG’s office accepted the deal, but perhaps not.
The one about Jurden. If that had been in the file, why wasn’t that in the original story? I haven’t checked with Barrish, but do you really think that report was part of the original material but the editors decided to cut it out?
If you read the original article, 98 percent of it is based on the lawsuit. There is a reference to the earlier plea, but no substantive details. My guess is that the 2008 case file had gone into the archives and it took a while for the prothonotary to retrieve it, so the details weren’t available for the original article. When the paper got them and read the entire file, they decided on a follow-up. The details in the first piece were the bare-bones elements that could have been pulled from the computer docket. Again, this is just a guess.
Original story: http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2014/03/18/du-pont-heir-faces-child-sex-lawsuit/6565107/
So a wealthy Liberal gets off in a one party state and everyone is surprised?
Biden’s story:
http://news.delaware.gov/2014/04/02/attorney-general-biden-letter-to-the-editorprosecuting-child-sexual-abuse-cases/
Reactions from those who hate Jurden? Do you still believe she deserves the brunt of the blame? Do you find Biden’s explanation satisfying? Why/why not? Discuss amongst yourselves.
Not impressed with Bidens explanation.
SussexAnon – Why?
Biden’s letter explains what we already know. This would have been a difficult case to prove and would have required putting a young child on the stand, subject to cross examination. Still, it leaves questions unanswered. Why did Renee Hrivnak and the AG’s office not insist on at least some prison time? Can Biden explain why this case was not featured prominently on his website when it was adjudicated five years ago? He plasters every child porn arrest (conviction not necessary) on there. What other examples can he provide where the accused who admitted to raping his or her child was not imprisoned because he or she would not “fare well”? Did Judge Jurden not have the discretion to impose prison time regardless of the plea deal or sentencing guidelines?
Beau needs to talk to the public, to get in front of the microphones and cameras and level with the people. How many times is he going to hide behind his spokesman or a deputy or a press release? What steps is he taking to ensure that this does not happen again? How do we know that our children are safe?
Jason was correct earlier when he said that Biden seems to avoid the difficult proescutions in favor of the slam dunks. Convictions and success look better during a gubernatorial campaign. Color me unimpressed.
I actually do accept the explanation and I’m glad to see his office finally backed up Judge Jurden, however, accepting the reasoning does not mean agreeing with it and I also don’t like how this defendant was spared the public humiliation given to so many other defendants by the AG’s office before they even go to trial.
I’m willing to bet that there are many other cases of parental or familial abuse that aren’t the subject of press releases. The survivors can easily be identified by those who know the family in such cases. Frankly, I’m kind of surprised the NJ named his ex-wife, as that clearly IDs the children.
A letter to the editor instead of answering questions from reporters? That’s the strongest signal yet that Beau is not fully healthy. This collection of boilerplate sentiments could have been composed by anyone in the office.
“So a wealthy Liberal gets off in a one party state and everyone is surprised?”
Where do you get the wrong information that this guy is a liberal? He’s related to the du Ponts, all strongly conservative, and federal judge Jane Roth, another conservative.
If he got the breaks because of his connections, those connections are all to conservatives.
@Sussex Watcher: The more I think about it, the more I think you’re wrong. If you’re looking at the sentencing docket, all you’re going to see is that somebody pleaded out to fourth-degree assault and got a sentence suspended for treatment. The only way this would have caught your attention was the name, and you’d have to recognize that this particular Richards was related to the attorney.
So yes, it was “public knowledge,” but not in the sense that the details were made public.
There are lots more legitimate things to slag TNJ for than missing this as a story at the time.
While the cases are not similar at all, the sentiment is. In our neighboring state, the attorney general shut down a sting operation that had apparently snagged several politicians accepting money or gifts.
Kathleen Kane could have hid behind press releases or spokespersons. She did not. She met with the editorial board of the Philadelphia Inquirer, although she showed up with her own attorney and took a public beating for that. She also held a press conference and defended her decision. It hasn’t made Kane or the decision any more popular, but at least she’s out there.
Beau, where are you?
Beau explanation is it was such a weak case that we took what we could get.
I didn’t see any explanation about the wouldn’t “fare well in prison” quote. If that was part of the discussion between attorneys, then the plea agreement is an epic fail.
He should have been sentenced to prison time. Even if it was for a short time.
“There are lots more legitimate things to slag TNJ for than missing this as a story at the time.”
Maybe they missed it. Maybe they didn’t. It’s not like the media never suppresses stories for political reasons.
Just look what they are doing with the Leland Yee case in California. Not a word.
I googled the case, and nothing comes up for Leland Yee and The News Journal, except a story from last year entitled “Law makers who proposed gun laws face threats” where Yee claims that he received death threats for proposing new gun laws.
So let’s get this straight. The News Journal runs a story from USA Today about a major anti gun political figure who is threatened for proposing stricter gun laws, but when that same politician is nabbed in a huge gun running operation….. we get nothing……. Why?
Well, I phoned The News Journal just now, and asked them why they weren’t running the story, and their answer was…” because California is so far away”
Classic! What a joke.
@FBH: I went to the budget meetings for years. Never once was a national wire-service story spiked for political reasons. Rarely was a national wire-service story even discussed. They print what fits, period.
The story is a lot more complicated than “Democrat runs guns.” It is, indeed, a fascinating story. On the other hand, it’s an indictment, not a conviction, and he’s a California state senator, not in the national government. The publishing of a story in the past about his supposed threats does not obligate a newspaper to follow up every story about him the day it happens.
Beyond that, it’s not as if Yee was selling guns for use on the streets of San Francisco. It’s actually worse than that — he wanted to sell them to Filipino Muslim terrorists. But, technically, that’s not even hypocritical for a supporter of gun control in this country.
The local staff now has almost nothing to do with the national stories. They get pre-designed USA Today pages inserted into the regular paper, and don’t choose them or touch them. I call BS on FBH.
– – –
Geezer wrote: “If you’re looking at the sentencing docket, all you’re going to see is that somebody pleaded out to fourth-degree assault and got a sentence suspended for treatment. The only way this would have caught your attention was the name, and you’d have to recognize that this particular Richards was related to the attorney. So yes, it was “public knowledge,” but not in the sense that the details were made public.”
You are not thinking clearly, with all due respect. The AG’s office and police do not put out information on every crime or case in the state. They both cherry-pick, selectively, based on what they think the public needs to know, what they want the public to know and what’s going to make them look good.
But all JP, Common Pleas, Chancery and Supreme Court cases are public and have been so for years. If a reporter doesn’t recognize a name or have the curiosity to look up a case, it’s on them.
But let’s say for the sake of argument that Biden’s office *had* put out a release on the Richards plea. It wouldn’t have identified the survivor or even their relationship. It wouldn’t have noted who he’s related to or descended from. It wouldn’t have noted his trust fund or houses or anything like that.
So the harried reporter on the courts beat back then would have known the *exact same amount of information* from this hypothetical press release as he could have gotten from the court records. It’s still on the media to recognize the name. It’s not the AG’s job to hold them by the hand and point out stories of importance.
“If a reporter doesn’t recognize a name or have the curiosity to look up a case, it’s on them.”
With all due respect, speaking as someone who used to edit the court reporters, if my reporter had looked up every fourth-degree sexual assault plea deal, it would have come out of my ass. The reality of journalism at all but the biggest news organizations is that reporters must produce copy. There is no time for chasing down leads. That bullshit happens a lot on TV, almost never in real life.
I don’t know if you worked in the media, but don’t kid yourself. Almost all stories like this come from tips, not from digging through public records.
On the publicity front, the press releases are typically upon arrest, not conviction, and those releases don’t merely give the name of the defendant. They also give an address. So you’re incorrect.
I realize you’re dealing with some ideal world. I’m busy in this one.
Lol…..Come on Geezer. You know that if it were a pro gun Republican getting nicked for gun running, The News Journal would be running multiple expanding stories on it.
It wouldn’t matter what state it happened in.
“The AG’s office and police do not put out information on every crime or case in the state.”
No, they don’t, and the law with respect to police reports is outrageous. They should be part of the public record, and are in every other state I have checked.
“They both cherry-pick, selectively,’
Indeed. And often not in a timely manner.
“based on what they think the public needs to know, what they want the public to know and what’s going to make them look good.”
I agree about the second two points. The first one is speculative.
What is it that you are calling BS on, SussexWatcher? You don’t think I called TNJ, and some lady told me that the reason they aren’t running the story is “because California is so far away”? That’s a direct quote, son.
“Come on Geezer. You know that if it were a pro gun Republican getting nicked for gun running, The News Journal would be running multiple expanding stories on it.”
Don’t be a schmuck. I’ve done it, you haven’t. Have the brains and grace to learn from someone who knows more than you about this.
If it were a state senator in a southern state, you might see a news brief on it, just as you’ll see something on this once there’s more than the indictment to go on. The most likely place to find any explication of national news is on the op-ed page, not in the news columns. Until the remake, there was on average less than one full page per day of national news.
As for what some “lady” told you, if you don’t know whom you were talking to, that hardly qualifies as the official explanation. Frankly, if I got a call like that on deadline, I would have told you to go fuck yourself in fairly graphic terms.
Well, she didn’t tell me to go fuck myself, so I left her name out of it.
People generally don’t tell people who are being respectful and polite to fuck off.
“Don’t be a schmuck. I’ve done it, you haven’t. Have the brains and grace to learn from someone who knows more than you about this”.
I’ll give you that , but I still think both the left wing, and right wing media, bury stories to suit their own politics.
The Yee story is a huge deal in California, which is why anyone who reads the internet has heard of it no matter what media sites they visit. That TNJ once ran a USA Today story about Yee had far more to do with filling news hole the day it ran than its partisan or ideological content.
@FBH-
Go Fuck Yourself.
I say that only on general principles, mostly because you’re an idiot.
I’m not sure what color glasses you wear, but I suspect they’re prismatic, as your view of the world seems incredibly skewed toward the idiotic.
FBH-
Go fuck yourself. In a nice way.
“your view of the world seems incredibly skewed toward the idiotic.”
And your view of the world is narrow and guided only by the information that your ring masters want you to have. That’s why a clown like you hasn’t even heard of the Democratic state Senator from California who has been indicted for bribery, corruption, and weapons trafficking which included hand held rocket launchers.
Now, run along. I hear the circus music calling you.
Barish’s article was trash no better than a grocery store tabloid. Poorly researched, if at all. It invoked baseless and inflammatory, race baiting, poor vs. rich rhetorical questions for no reason other than to sell TNJ rag. Never mind that juxtaposing those questions upon a poorly presented sentencing background predictably stirred up the psychologically unsound with the further predictable result that threats of violence confront some of those involved. Well done. Gannet must be proud.
This is such lousy reporting that the First Amendment shouldn’t protect Barish or TNJ on this one. Too bad a newspaper doesn’t have to earn the First Amendment right. Maybe Barish and TNJ editors can run an article to explain how much time and effort they put into this article.
Finally, I have yet to see any of the inflamed masses suggest some other enlightened alternative for handling Richard’s case. Not just a sentence him to jail – as though the defense attorney would simply let that fly; or that the 4 year old wouldn’t be scarred for too long after testifying. Not just shoot the judge – that may happen given Barish’s riot inciting article. What happened if they went to trial and lost? How much better off would the result be? Like it or not, the prosecution of any case requires an informed decision. Sentencing an offender likewise takes far, far more than a seat of the pants, two bit guess. Not the half-assed guesses of a hack reporter and trash tabloid.
Mr Richards,
I understand you are a HORRIBLY persecuted rich, white, pedophile, (history’s most oppressed minority) but try to calm down before you spittle everywhere. If you had gone to jail with “the help”, you would have been in a segregated population with the rest of the pedophiles.
BTW, the RAPE is probably much more scaring than testifying. Are you really going to sit here and say that kids who have been fucked by their parents shouldn’t get to confront their rapist because it might be traumatizing for them? I guess adult women who are raped should let their attacker plead out like you did …. ya know. to spare them. HACK TABLOID RAG BRAHGHGHGH
” It invoked baseless and inflammatory, race baiting, poor vs. rich rhetorical questions for no reason other than to sell TNJ rag.”
Really? None of those questions is legitimate? Or you just didn’t like them?
Your other criticisms are valid, but this one is a bit much. If those questions aren’t raised, the newspaper is equally open to criticism that they buried a potentially controversial aspect of the story.
Were you born yesterday? Did you just fall off a turnip truck? When has the media EVER lived up to your simon-pure standard of what OUGHT TO BE?
“Are you really going to sit here and say that kids who have been fucked by their parents shouldn’t get to confront their rapist because it might be traumatizing for them?”
In general, it’s the molester “confronting” his accuser that prosecutors try to avoid when the accuser is the molester’s child. Perhaps you could put on your thinking cap to figure out why.
Also, he technically did not “fuck” the child.
Geezer:
Agreed – the questions about rich/poor and race baiting are legitimate questions in the abstract.
To ask them as rhetorical questions under the guise of this hack job – WITHOUT ANY LEGITIMATE FACTUAL BASIS – is ethically irresponsible. If Barich had something aside from the sentencing result, ie., he actually dug into the file, conducted interviews and otherwise conducted himself like a real investigative journalist, and he found something to suggest Richards was treated differently, then by all means ask the tough questions. Put those responsible on the spot. Make them account.
Maybe someone should go around asking Barish’s wife, children, parents, siblings, friends, co-workers, and anyone else if he still beats his wife, or is still fond of the sheep. Hey, all legitimate questions!
The difference here is that journalists – real journalists – don’t sling shit solely to sell papers. They do it because they really found it.
As for confronting the accuser confronting the witness, again, in the abstract, I agree with you. Don’t for one moment, however, tell me that a 4 year old is up for this confrontation. For that matter I doubt that most of the doubting dolts here could withstand the emotional trauma that kind of confrontation can give rise to.
I’m no fan of Biden’s handling of the AG’s office. Politics clouds their policy judgments. But the lynch mob now wants that office to ignore the damage they inflict in favor of political expediency by prosecuting every single one of these cases to trial. Thank you but I’d rather draw-and-quarter a reckless prosecutor who insists on putting a 4 year old on the stand without regard to the damage it would inflict on that child.
If TNJ and Barish really wanted to do something ethically responsible and serve a useful purpose, they could have run this story as an example of how difficult prosecutions are and asked tough questions about the process, the solutions, the victims, and the defendants. Instead they took the lowest of roads and sloughed shit.
Cool. I turned this into me suggesting a 4 year old should have to get into an argument with their attacker… or something.
To deny that child justice over such a pretext is insane. There are ways children can testify where they dont have to see the monster. You both know that, I know that.
I ask again. what is more traumatizing? giving testimony, or knowing your rapist, monster father went free because some judge thought it was “better for you”? (when we really know who’s welfare was being considered.)
Ben:
Read the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution: the accused has the right to confront their accuser. Confrontation means just that – cross-examination at trial. What if the 4 year old made this up? What if mom filled her head with the story? What if the 4 year old identified the wrong person?
The idea that emotional damage serves as pretext is myopic. Would you subject your 4 year old to it? If yes, then please contact DFS so they can confiscate your kids. What is the child supposed to think feel when the abuser returns home free and clear when a jury acquits them? Remember, the AG didn’t think they could win the case at trial. As though going through a trial isn’t bad enough for the child, now after acquittal the abuser is home without therapy, without monitoring, without accountability. Even if you still think a 4 year old can hold up at trial, what do they have to protect them after acquittal.
I get it. Everyone gets it. None of these abusers should ever get a pass especially when the victim is so very incapable of defending themselves. THIS what makes Richards sentence so troubling. Its not that he was a rich white guy named Dupont and that he could afford the best of lawyers because his trust fund was flush with cash. The fact of the matter is that Richards type sentence is too common when young kids are the abused. That’s the f’ing problem. At that is where Barish and TNJ completely blew it.
Instead they contributed to a political environment that backs the AG into prosecuting losing abuse cases and smeared the reputation of a very good judge – all for the price of a few newspapers. That’s right were we need to be.
This will come up in the next AG election. The unwashed masses, fired up by TNJ, will demand a candidate promise no pleas bargains for sexual abuse cases.
And the current AG is directly responsible for this mess. If you are on the AG’s Press Release email list, you are receiving plenty of emails blowing the horn of the office that has nabbed one more child predator. They name names, where they live and provide mug shots. If this guy was the subject of a big press release pointing out how the AG is protecting children, it would be harder to make the case that the system itself is covering for this guy. You can make the case that the problem is the process (and it very well might be), except that the current process includes publicly claiming credit for bringing these guys in and even that was kept under wraps.
Cassandra:
Spot on. Politics clouds the Office’s policy judgments.
Maybe Barish and TNJ could ask the AG’s office for the press piece they did for Richards indictment. Not likely as that would be like doing real investigative journalism.
If Richards arrest was posted on the AG’s website, they’ve got it AND there are tools to easily recover it.
“If TNJ and Barish really wanted to do something ethically responsible and serve a useful purpose, they could have run this story as an example of how difficult prosecutions are and asked tough questions about the process, the solutions, the victims, and the defendants. Instead they took the lowest of roads and sloughed shit.”
I don’t know of a newspaper in the United States that would have done what you suggest with the defendant in question. You are talking about long-form magazine journalism — and no magazine is going to print a thumb-sucker about how tough it is to make decisions on cases like this by pointing to the case of a put-upon multi-millionaire.
You can act as indignant as you like, but it’s not going to change the practices of a multi-billion-dollar industry. A free press is free to be irresponsible, and it usually is. My complaint about your complaint is that it’s unrealistic in the extreme.
“Maybe someone should go around asking Barish’s wife, children, parents, siblings, friends, co-workers, and anyone else if he still beats his wife, or is still fond of the sheep. Hey, all legitimate questions! ”
No, they’re not. There is no compelling public interest in the answers.
” The fact of the matter is that Richards type sentence is too common when young kids are the abused.”
Do you know that for a fact? Or is that speculation?
“Politics clouds the Office’s policy judgments.”
And it always has. And it always will. Or were you under the impression that the AG has made a priority of child-molestation cases because they truly are the most important priority of a prosecutor’s office?
The criminal defense bar wrote a letter, quoted in the most recent WNJ article, saying that a fully suspended sentence was common for a first-time offender, fourth-degree rape. I know everyone here things lawyers are all just defending each other, but the criminal defense bar would be in the best position to know.
Also, regardless of whether the WNJ should have uncovered the sentence earlier, or whether the prosecutor should have been more aggressive, I think that the later breaking facts show that Judge Jurden has been badly mistreated in this scandal. The WNJ came out guns blazing at Judge Jurden, I’m guessing because she was an easier target than a member of the Biden family. (Though, of course, no one can be more of a victim than Richards’ children. Judge Jurden has a loving wife and family, she’ll get past this, but those kids are permanently scarred). But, the WNJ, national blogs, and indeed this website (which still has the “IMPEACH JURDEN” image up), has focused the entirety of this problem on Judge Jurden, with zero context or nuance. Judge Jurden has received death threats, threats against her children, and has had a long and respected career of public service permanently sullied. She went from being a front-runner for Chief Justice to someone who all non-lawyers who don’t know her revile and would spit on if they had the chance. And only because blind outrage at a single target is easier than confronting systemic or complicated problems. The best example is the WNJ’s editorial about the “real questions” raised by the Richards case, where they accurately outlined all of the problems with how the criminal justice system. But, Barrish’s original article didn’t raise any of those questions, it was entirely focused on Judge Jurden and laying this injustice solely at her feet. I’m sure it was great click-bait, but if the WNJ had written a more comprehensive article originally it may not have gotten as many views, but it would have been fairer to the situation, to Judge Jurden, and indeed to the victims. (Though, admittedly, probably not as favorable to Tom Crumpler’s 40% commission on the outcome of the lawsuit against Richards.)
Also, to another point raised, there are definitely ways, within constitutional bounds, to have a child testify not in the presence of the defendant. But, I think the bigger factor is, if the case had gone to trial Richards likely would have won. Even if this young girl had testified, it still would have been her word against Richards’. Maybe the AG’s office should have gone to trial to make a point, but having Richards return home with no limitations on being able to be near kids, or being monitored, or having to attend psychiatric treatment, would have been even more terrible than the plea deal.
And that goes to the true unfair advantage wealthy people have in court. They can afford lawyers who will devote hours to the case, leave no stone unturned, and do anything necessary to get their client off. I’m sure this comes into prosecutor’s thinking of how much to give in on a plea…an overworked public defender is easier to beat in court than a team of white-shoe attorneys. (Not the public defender’s fault, but they have a full case load, the white-shoe attorney can devote all the time in the world, as long as Richards’ checks clear).
But that is a complicated problem with no easy solution. It was definitely easier to make Judge Jurden into the villain, solely responsible for all of the ills of the criminal justice system.
Anon2, you make several salient points. Judge Jurden certainly was not most at fault for this travesty of justice, but to completely exonerate her as you apparently do is just wrong. She could have included some jail time in addition to the other conditions, and she didn’t.
That said, she doesn’t deserve threats, nor does her family. That is wrong, and I hope those who are making them find their way into a courtroom.
I didn’t read the article as making her solely responsible. Not sure where you got that. I think Cris Barrish did a good job pointing out how the AG’s office cut the deal. When the story spread nationally, Judge Jurden most certainly caught most of the flak, but I am not holding Barrish responsible for that.
I also think you’re being unfair to Barrish. The point of his article was not to raise questions about the system. It was to tell people about what happened and, as much as he could given the refusal of so many to comment. Judge Jurden would not comment. Nor would Renee Hrivnak. They had a chance to tell their side and did not.
Anon2, there is no need for lengthy speculation and defense of why Judge Jurden came to her decision in the sentencing of Richards. She has already explained why , and it made headlines.
@FBH: You are laboring under a misconception. “Won’t fare well” in prison was a note, not part of the text. It was probably written down by the judge after it was said by the defense attorney(s).
Yeah, you could be right. But tell that to almost every media outlet in the country.
Anon2 nails it. Barrish was fed spin by Crumplar.
Wait until all realize that the trust funds are impregnable.
Geezer:
So its okay for a multi-billion dollar industry to f^&k someone in print? Is the source of my apparent misunderstanding that I just don’t understand that some f&*king is okay but other f&*king is not? Really!!!!
If you are correct, then I am rightfully indignant. It’s not okay to ruin a child’s life by sexual abuse. Those who do it deserve the worst punishments that civilized society can conscionable throw at them. Likewise its no less wrong to ruin someone’s life through bullshit allegations, especially of this kind, publicly made and recklessly splashed in newsprint. If something horrible happens to Jurden as a result of Barish and TNJ’s reporting is that okay? Maybe that is less bad than what happens to abused children but that surely doen’t make it right. Is it okay that Jurden’s kids, if she has them, are exposed to the shit that Barish and TNJ threw out. I don’t think so.
I’m going to conduct a seance tonight. I’m inviting everyone that fought and died defending the Constitution and First Amendment. I’ll be ask them if protecting Barish and TNJ was what they had in mind when they laid down their lives. I’m thinking they won’t agree with Barish and TNJ.
The freedom of speech and the press were abused by Barish and the TJN. Those rights were not conceived of as vehicles to both talk shit and make money. They are intended to serve as a fundamental check against reactive governments and abuses by elected officials. To my mind, Barish and TNJ’s abuse here is as bad and any other abusive use of other constitutionally guaranteed rights.
To be honest I do not know for a fact that Richards’ sentence is too common. I inferred it from the remarks of criminal defense attorneys. Maybe I am wrong. That said, Barish/TNJ could have investigated that before recklessly asking inflammatory rhetorical questions in a public forum through a medium that preaches journalistic integrity. If it is true – too many abusers are getting off because the victims are too young to testify, then instead of addressing that problem the lynch mob will be satiated with just Richards, Biden and Jurden’s head because thats what Barish and TNJ delivered.
Again, well done Barish. Well done TNJ.
“I’m going to conduct a seance tonight. I’m inviting everyone that fought and died defending the Constitution and First Amendment. I’ll be ask them if protecting Barish and TNJ was what they had in mind when they laid down their lives.”
I understand that breathing into a brown paper bag is a good cure for hyperventilation.
Held seance. I’ve been vindicated. Also learned that Barish does, indeed, fancy the sheep.
Also said I don’t need the paper bag. 😉
Two last thoughts.
1. Am I correct that Jack Jurden – formerly editorial cartoonist for the News Journal – is the father of Judge Jurden. I wonder if Barish had an axe to grind against Jack and finally found an opportunity to do it. The sloppy article about Richards is, as best I know, an anomaly in that Barish generally does good work.
2. For shits and giggles I read the News Journals’ mission statement. Geezer is absolutely right. Not one word about integrity, journalistic standards, or anything remotely suggesting anything other than a profit motive. It reads:
“We will secure our position as the most valued information source in Delaware by providing superior information products, services, and customer satisfaction. By doing this, we will increase our value to society, our customers, our employees and our stockholders.”
I’m guessing that the “increase our value to society” bit was the sweetest icing they could put on the profit motive.
I can answer your first point in the negative. Yes, Jan is Jack’s daughter, but in 25 years I never heard anybody at the paper with a bad word about Jack.
This has all the earmarks of information that was passed along by a third party, in that it’s all true but badly skewed in perspective. Your criticisms are all valid, but your standard is higher than any media company these days even tries to meet.
Everyone should read http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2014/04/08/du-pont-heir-finish-treatment-records-show/7475045/ and http://www.delawaregrapevine.com/4-14richards.asp
Both of them undercut the basis of Barrish’s original claim that Jurden wrote that Richards would not fare well. Those were the words of his attorney. But you’ll note that Barrish never admits that – he buries his error under a new item designed to elicit outrage. The Grapevine piece is far more straightforward.
The whole thing was made clear when the transcript was prepared and released. If Barrish had just waited for the transcript – which is almost never included in the court file – Judge Jurden would not have been the subject of such vitriol. But he just had to breathlessly rush it into print.
But we’ll never see an apology or admission of error from the guy.
@SW: The reporter makes none of those decisions. Your ire is better directed at his editors.
If you truly believe that, you have been away from that newsroom longer than I thought. Barrish writes his own rules up there. He decides what he’s going to write about, how he’s going to approach it and who he’s going to go after. And he never admits mistakes.
I call bullshit. I was his editor, and he did no such thing when I was there. And I guarantee that nobody gets anything into print there without David Ledford’s say-so.
Whether Barrish is a nice person or whatever, or whether his editors forced him to run the story against his will (?), is kind of besides the point. Somewhere along the line, the WNJ made the conscious decision to not get the transcript before running a sensational story that (quite predictably) put a Judge’s life in danger. Tom Crumpler said “jump” and the WNJ said “how high?”
Transcripts are not difficult to get. But they do take time. (In Delaware, transcripts are not routinely prepared, the stenographer takes electronic shorthand during the trial, then you have to order a full transcript before it is created…which is why they aren’t in case files. You pay the stenographer directly for the transcript. They can take anywhere between 2-20 days, you pay more for a rush job).
Barrish/the WNJ try to excuse this by saying the transcript wasn’t in the case file. But it’s inconceivable that a reporter who has been in this state for X years didn’t know that you need to order transcripts. More likely? Barrish/the WNJ knew how to get the transcript, but didn’t feel like waiting for it to come when they knew they had a story that would generate a lot of buzz and readers.
Every fact the WNJ failed to gather and has come to light arisen since the first article shows the outrage that has been focused intensely on Judge Jurden is wildly misplaced.
I doubt we’ll see a retraction or apology from anyone, including this website, which still has the “IMPEACH JURDEN” image up.
For a balanced perspective on the very real problem of proving a child sex abuse case (the REAL issue that has been completely lost in everyone’s ferver to whip up a mob/get pageviews), see the Delaware Law Weekly coverage: http://www.delawarelawweekly.com/id=1202650227262/Richards%20Case%20Highlights%20Issues%20%20With%20Child%20Witnesses%20in%20Delaware?slreturn=20140310003742. It provides the legal backstory and context to the story. (Sadly, it’s behind a paywall, but you get 5 free articles when you sign up I think?).
When the point is to assign blame, as it apparently is for some people, it is wrong to assign it to the reporter when the system does not allow the reporter to make the decisions being attributed to him.
In other words, accuracy. When people are just making shit up, I feel duty-bound to correct their, um, “inaccuracies.” And as best I can tell, neither TNJ nor Barrish has said a word about how this story came to be reported the way it was.
So, given that everybody is just guessing, I think my 25 years actually working there are germane to the discussion.
To continue: I agree that Jurden should not have been blamed. But as best I can tell, everyone except Celia Cohen has overlooked an important fact: Robert H. Richards IV is “developmentally disabled,” which is a piss-poor way of saying “retarded.”
Look at the childlike way he confessed. Look at how everyone involved has tried to dance around the fact that he’s intellectually challenged. Look at the fact that, despite he’s 6-4 and 250 pounds, even the prosecutor said prison wasn’t an appropriate setting.
The du Ponts have a number of intellectually challenged family members, and they really, really don’t like acknowledging that fact. We all could have saved a lot of angst here if they would admit that about this fellow.
Stop all this bashing of the News Journal. They have served the Wilmington community very well since before the Babiarz administration and have continued this tradition to the present day, even after becoming a clipping service for the Gannett cartel. If you don’t like TNJ, go read the Cecil Whig for petes sake.
@Geezer – I’m genuinely confused as to your point…are you saying its possible Barrish desperately wanted to wait to get the transcript in hand, investigate further, etc., and he was stopped by the higher ups who demanded immediate publication? Is that how things work over there? I’m not sure that’s a better situation…
Oh My RNS!!!
The News Journal is trash. A mere shell of what it once was.
The reporting on the Richards case was inexcusably bad. The failure and refusal to amend/correct/apologize/clarify is unconscionable and otherwise unworthy of First Amendment protection.
If you want a real newspaper read the Philadelphia Inquirer. I swear if they were committed to Delaware like they are to South Jersey, I’d never read the News Journal again.
Geezer:
If I understand you correctly, Barrish’s reputation and professional integrity are out of his control as the editors have dominion over what is printed under his name. I have no factual or experiencial basis upon which to argue except that, if you are correct, then the newspaper business is lower than whale shit.
Maybe my job ain’t so bad after all.
In general, yes, editors have dominion over what is printed under a reporter’s name. If a reporter disagrees strongly, he or she can have the byline removed from the story, but the narrative in which the reporter makes these decisions and the paper simply prints them is not an accurate one at any newspaper.
I haven’t worked there in seven years, but I doubt David Ledford’s style has changed in that time. Let’s say he’s a very hands-on editor.
@Geezer – Huh. That’s interesting. I probably shouldn’t have laid all the blame for this journalistic travesty at Barrish’s feet without knowing all the facts. Maybe I should have looked into the context and gathered information on how newsrooms work first. I’d hate to unfairly malign someone where there is easily obtainable information mitigating that person’s culpability………..oh wait……..
Well played.