Wealthy Child Molester Gets Probation, Wouldn't Fare Well In Prison

[Kevin]

I once had a similar case where I obtained a suspended sentence for similar reasons. Big difference was that in my case, the victim was a 14 year old prostitute who had subsequently attempted to burglarized my client's (an octogenarian) home. Not the most sympathetic of victims.

As far as what his ex-wife says, if she's after money, I'd take what she says with a grain of salt. It's hard to know what really happened.

As far as the actual child rape goes, he may have admitted to doing those things, but may not necessarily have done them. Imagine the terrible choice of having to choose between admitting you raped your own children and get a suspended sentence and get to live with all of your money or deny it, risk conviction carrying a 10-year mandatory sentence per count.

It's really hard to know what all happened here, what the Judge knew, what the prosecutor who signed off on this deal knew, etc. Tough to know.

That said, in the civil trial he's already guilty/liable. The only question will be how much he's going to have to pay. I'm guessing that's a lot. I'm also guessing that's one reason the prosecutor and probably the mother didn't protest much when the deal was made.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Kevin

As far as what his ex-wife says, if she's after money, I'd take what she says with a grain of salt. It's hard to know what really happened.

No. It's not hard to know what really happened. This man raped a child. I know you are a defense attorney, but rape apologism like this is one reason victims have such a hard time coming forward.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

No. It's not hard to know what really happened. This man raped a child. I know you are a defense attorney, but rape apologism like this is one reason victims have such a hard time coming forward.

And how do you know for a fact that it happened?

You don't.

These things tend to have a lot of moving parts. Especially here where there's going to be a major civil lawsuit. I've had to defend people accused of raping their children before on more than one occasion. On one occasion, it was a case very similar to this in facts (except my guy wasn't a DuPont) When we're talking about a young child, in this case, age 3, you have a VERY unreliable witness.

Think about it--you can get a 3 year old to believe literally anything. If their parents tell them there's this fat guy in a red suit who flies around in a sleigh pulled around by reindeer, and [spoiler alert] he knows if you're naughty or nice, that 3 year old has no doubt that Santa Claus is very real.

If you can convince a 3-year-old of that with very little difficulty, how tough is it to convince them that daddy touched them inappropriately?

So here, mom who feels slighted by being divorced by the rich ne'er do well heir, wants more money. Maybe the way the trust is paid out deprives her of what she thinks she should be getting for child support and support alimony. Mom hatches a scheme to get the child to cry rape (you would be surprised how very common this is in child custody cases) and now, basically, dad has to prove it didn't happen.

There are a number of ways to lend credibility to dad. The child will typically undergo a forensic interview. If the child, however, has been adequately prepared for the forensic interview, or somehow just answers the questions the way they need to be answered, forensic interviews aren't 100% effective.

Then you can subject dad to a psychosexual evaluation. This would usually entail all the usual stuff, MMPI, other assessments and sometimes include a Penile plethysmograph test, something I would find utterly humiliating if subjected to. In one case, my guy got a clean bill of health from that test, except it came back that he also might be a sociopath... so again, these things have limited value.

I'll bet you're just as sure this guy is guilty as you were certain of the Duke Lacrosse team's guilt or that Zimmerman would be convicted.

You need to learn the difference between fact an opinion.. or at least review it.

[maconmagnolia]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And how do you know for a fact that it happened?

You don't.

These things tend to have a lot of moving parts. Especially here where there's going to be a major civil lawsuit. I've had to defend people accused of raping their children before on more than one occasion. On one occasion, it was a case very similar to this in facts (except my guy wasn't a DuPont) When we're talking about a young child, in this case, age 3, you have a VERY unreliable witness.

Think about it--you can get a 3 year old to believe literally anything. If their parents tell them there's this fat guy in a red suit who flies around in a sleigh pulled around by reindeer, and [spoiler alert] he knows if you're naughty or nice, that 3 year old has no doubt that Santa Claus is very real.

If you can convince a 3-year-old of that with very little difficulty, how tough is it to convince them that daddy touched them inappropriately?

So here, mom who feels slighted by being divorced by the rich ne'er do well heir, wants more money. Maybe the way the trust is paid out deprives her of what she thinks she should be getting for child support and support alimony. Mom hatches a scheme to get the child to cry rape (you would be surprised how very common this is in child custody cases) and now, basically, dad has to prove it didn't happen.

There are a number of ways to lend credibility to dad. The child will typically undergo a forensic interview. If the child, however, has been adequately prepared for the forensic interview, or somehow just answers the questions the way they need to be answered, forensic interviews aren't 100% effective.

Then you can subject dad to a psychosexual evaluation. This would usually entail all the usual stuff, MMPI, other assessments and sometimes include a Penile plethysmograph test, something I would find utterly humiliating if subjected to. In one case, my guy got a clean bill of health from that test, except it came back that he also might be a sociopath... so again, these things have limited value.

I'll bet you're just as sure this guy is guilty as you were certain of the Duke Lacrosse team's guilt or that Zimmerman would be convicted.

You need to learn the difference between fact an opinion.. or at least review it.

Thank you.

I agree with what DeltaBetaBaby said, but at the same time, we have to realize that charged does NOT mean guilty. Innocent people are arrested and charged all the time for crimes that they didn't commit or crimes that are an exaggeration of what actually happened. There has to be a balance between emphasizing that the victim is NEVER at fault, but also investigating each case to make sure that the rape actually occurred and the alleged victim is telling the truth. False rape claims, while rare, do occur and that means that each case must be thoroughly investigated.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by maconmagnolia

False rape claims, while rare, do occur and that means that each case must be thoroughly investigated.

These are not rare at all when it comes to child custody cases. On any given day, I have at least one of these cases I'm defending when representing dad.

What you read in the media and what is really happening is often two different things. For example, last year, I had a case which was prominently mentioned on the crime page of the Huffington Post. It made local and national news. You never heard about the work I did because it's all confidential.

Suffice to say, this mom and dad were accused of just horrible, despicable things, now has their family back when it should have never been torn apart because the intake process was incredibly botched and the state went off half cocked when they should have worked it differently.... but guess what made the headlines anyhow.

[als463]

I don't know, Kevin. Most people wouldn't "admit" to committing such heinous acts, even if it meant saving money. Child molester is pretty much the worst title any person can carry. I don't know too many people that would take on such a title to save money. As someone who has worked in child protective services, I can tell you that I have seen some people try to use their children as pawns but, to assume that could be the case is problematic. This attitude that children will believe anything told to them is the same attitude that made our DA choose not to prosecute someone who was otherwise guilty because, "Well, the kid looked coached." Even though CPS knew he was guilty, the DA didn't want to do her job or thought it might be too tough to make a case because the kid was young. I agree with DBB. We need to stop victim-blaming as a society or people will not feel comfortable coming forward.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by als463

I don't know, Kevin. Most people wouldn't "admit" to committing such heinous acts, even if it meant saving money.

I just had a client "admit" to having control of meth, paraphernalia and a gun because the state offered a seven-year deferred sentence. She was looking at 20+ to do. I'll bet I'd have won that trial, but sometimes, when your client is looking at serious time, they'll admit to a lot in order to stay out of the pokey. Her real crime was hanging out with the wrong crowd and not inspecting her "friend's" backpack before letting him in her car.

With her sentence, assume she stays clean and sober and commits no serious crimes for 7 years, the whole thing comes off of her record.

Child molester is pretty much the worst title any person can carry. I don't know too many people that would take on such a title to save money.

I think you misread the article. He was looking at 10 years minimum on the original charge. And that may have been consecutive sentences, so he was looking at potentially 20 minimum (I'd have to read the guidelines to know for sure, but whatever it is, that's serious time).

As someone who has worked in child protective services, I can tell you that I have seen some people try to use their children as pawns but, to assume that could be the case is problematic. This attitude that children will believe anything told to them is the same attitude that made our DA choose not to prosecute someone who was otherwise guilty because, "Well, the kid looked coached." Even though CPS knew he was guilty, the DA didn't want to do her job or thought it might be too tough to make a case because the kid was young. I agree with DBB. We need to stop victim-blaming as a society or people will not feel comfortable coming forward.

I always take issue with CPS saying they "know" someone is guilty. I'm not sure what kind of training you have, but around here, you can be a CPS caseworker so long as you have any bachelor's degree from anywhere and can pass a background check. Limited language skills? Terrible personality? Tendency to lie under pressure? No problem, you're hired. On top of the lack of qualification, here they get a caseload no ordinary human could keep up with, have supervisors who are products of the Peter Principle, who have their own various agendas, a Supreme Court dumping new rules on them every so often, etc. So when they say they "know" something, my eyes can't help to roll back just a little.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply stating that no one knows that's not the case, and therefore to state they KNOW he's guilty... well, there's just not enough information here to really determine that except that as a legal fiction, yes, he's plead guilty and legally he's now guilty of 4th degree rape.

Mom does potentially have a HUGE financial motive here, but put yourself in this guy's shoes. Even if you're not a convicted sex offender, would you rather spend potentially 20 years as a convicted sex offender out in the world with a large trust fund or 20 years in the penitentiary?