Coffee Crew
Nick Bate's Web Comic the Coffee Crew
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Kiwi Farm's User Saul Goodman's Account of the Trial
OPERATION SHIT EATER
Part 2(b): Shit Goes to Trial
Since there seems to be some confusion, my recap will begin with some sperging about a how a preliminary hearing works in Pennsylvania (and other similar states). A preliminary hearing is not a trial. It is merely a check/balance to make sure that the prosecution can't bring unfounded charges. The standard for a preliminary hearing is that, in order to go to a formal arraignment at the main county courthouse, the prosecution must show, under Pennsylvania law that there is a "prima facie case that (1) an offense has been committed and (2) the defendant has committed it."
A prima facie case ("on its face," in Latin), means that the state can show the court sufficient evidence that -- if this evidence is accepted as true (i.e., viewed "on its face") -- the court can conclude that a crime has been committed and the defendant probably committed it. This is not about "reasonable doubt" or gathering evidence (that happens during the discovery phase of a trial) or arguing the merits of the case. It is, once again, merely a check on the prosecution's power to charge people incorrectly/unfairly -- they have to show that they have some evidence, that if it is accepted as true, would sustain their charges. Obviously, if the prosecution cannot produce such evidence, it would be inappropriate for the judge to send the case to trial.
I mention this background because it is useful in understanding what happened today. As you read this, keep in mind that, while the defense has a right to call witnesses and cross-examine the state's witnesses, it can only do so to negate the state's case (i.e. show that even if you accept the state's evidence as true, it doesn't sufficiently show that the defendant committed the crime). Again, this is not a time for the defense to do discovery or question the credibility of witnesses (for the purposes of a preliminary hearing, their testimony is accepted as true).
Accordingly, the fact that the hearing went the way it did tells us a lot about the defense strategy: By making the victim testify and pushing her as hard as they can (more on this below), they are sending a message that they're going to go after this innocent, 12 year old girl if the case doesn't plead out [Editor's Note: I realize that her name has been published on other websites, but in order to protect her privacy, I suggest that we stop using even her first name and refer to her either as "the victim" or AO -- because seriously, guys, who would want this shit popping up in a Google search of their name for the rest of their lives]. It's not an uncommon strategy. And, sadly, it's quite often an effective one.
My last update left off with me sitting next to the step-dad, aunt, and "B-mum" with step-dad going off to pick AO up from her friend's house because she had suddenly been called to testify. The three adults do, as several posters have surmised, seem like stereotypical country folk. The father -- a balding, weathered man in clothes that suggested a physically strenuous occupation -- seemed to be genuinely overwhelmed. He commented to me that "I've never been to a place like this before." I assumed he meant to a courthouse for a criminal proceeding. I replied that I hadn't either (this was, indeed, the first time I'd been to a magistrate's court in an actual trailer, although I've been to several that were similarly unimposing). B-mum and aunt were genuinely kind and gentle people. Not the horrible, intolerant rednecks that everyone seems to think. B-mum even gave me the pen and paper that I used to take notes at the hearing after I was a typical sperg and forgot mine in the car. And this was after she knew I was a blogger/"online reporter" (and heaven knows the internet has not been kind to her son).
That said, she and the aunt are simple folk (the aunt shares the Stoutzenberger family teeth, but B-mum seems in surprisingly good shape for her age) and do genuinely seem to have convinced themselves that Nick is innocent. The aunt remarked how all the news reports have been "filled with inaccuracies" [Editor's Note: rates optimistic]. B-mum concurred and said she had "turned everything off" for a few weeks and wanted to "hear more positive stories on the news." Given that the father, mother, and AO are still living together, I can only imagine what this state of affairs is doing to the family dynamic.
The hearing itself was relatively short, with only two witnesses called. The second was The Detective (TD), but all she was there to do was the usual "yep, I arrested him, and on these charges." She wasn't cross-examined.
The victim's testimony, however, was unnerving; even for someone like me who's spent a significant amount of time working in courtrooms. Also, as I remarked about TD earlier, almost everyone there looked as if they came straight from central casting. The prosecutor was a pretty and eager young brunette, seemingly fresh out of law school. The public defender was a heavyset, gray-haired gentleman who absolutely oozed with "good ol' boy" charm/sleaze. And, as you can see from the perp walk, the constable was a total badass (my, oh my, did he rock those shades).
The victim's direct examination was relatively straightforward; she told everyone who she was, who Nick was, and what had happened. Out of respect for her, I won't go into details, but I will say both that the things she described were brutal and disgusting to a degree far beyond what has previously been reported, and that her testimony was both assured and utterly convincing, which made having to listen to it all the more horrible.
However, even in the middle of her direct, the Sleazy Defense Counsel (SDC) started in with what I consider to be inappropriate gamesmanship. He interrupted and asked AO directly to speak up (it was a small room, I was at the back of it, and I heard her just fine). I realize better than most that every defendant is entitled to a zealous and competent defense. I think that's a good thing -- a wonderful thing even -- about our society. And sometimes a zealous defense means callously working to discredit an innocent 12 year old girl. But it does not mean actively doing things that (at least from my perspective) serve no purpose other than intimidating her.
The prosecutor, while generally excellent (which is not surprising -- these days you have to have superb credentials to get any prosecutor's job straight out of law school), unfortunately played into this a little bit (in my opinion) by asking questions that weren't necessary to make her prima facie case (e.g., "So, when you say you sucked it, what do you mean by that?").
But it was on cross-examination that SDC got significantly out of line. He began by making her repeat/confirm pretty much everything she said on direct and then kept pressing her for specificity on dates/times/logistical details (including such things as exactly how Nick pulled the victim's shirt up). The prosecutor objected (and her objections were sustained) on three different occasions that SDC's questions constituted a "fishing expedition," in which he was trying to discredit AO and try the case on the merits rather than contest the commonwealth's prima facie case that a crime had occurred and that Nick had committed it.
Obviously, after the victim's testimony, the judge found that the commonwealth had met its prima facie burden and sent the case over to the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas for a formal arraignment/trial.
After the hearing, TD, the prosecutor, the bailiff, and the constable were chatting and TD called me over and asked about my accent. After chatting for a bit, I asked if I could ask her a question in return: "So, were you the one who got the video?" She replied that she was, but that Nick didn't actually attach it to the email, but rather "threatened" (her wording) to send it to her. She remarked that she had found it on ED in the course of her research and, while smiling ever so slightly, informed me that "several" of her colleagues have seen it. She asked where she could read more, so I gave her the web address.
If you're reading this, Detective, please allow me to second everybody else here in commending you for your work. You put in a ton of effort and waded through a ton of muck and filth (both literally and figuratively) to help make the world a better and safer place.
Anyway, the long and the short of it is that (a) Sick Nick is going to be in prison for a long time at the end of this, (b) a bunch of people in Lancaster County now know, or shortly will know, about the Farms, and (c) AO is tough as nails. After dealing with what must be an utterly insane home life even apart from this case, she seems remarkably well-adjusted. It's a real tragedy that she has to go through this.
I'll answer more questions later, but for now it's time to distract myself with CGI dinosaurs. It's been a sincerely exhausting day. Goodnight everybody.
Ed Note: Here's the link to the forum post: https://kiwifar.ms/threads/nick-bate-2-the-reckoning.9293/page-96
Reading this made me feel sick to my stomach. I can't imagine what AO had to go through. Especially, reliving it by having to testify in court. Sick Nick deserves the full 40 years and then some.
Part 2(b): Shit Goes to Trial
Since there seems to be some confusion, my recap will begin with some sperging about a how a preliminary hearing works in Pennsylvania (and other similar states). A preliminary hearing is not a trial. It is merely a check/balance to make sure that the prosecution can't bring unfounded charges. The standard for a preliminary hearing is that, in order to go to a formal arraignment at the main county courthouse, the prosecution must show, under Pennsylvania law that there is a "prima facie case that (1) an offense has been committed and (2) the defendant has committed it."
A prima facie case ("on its face," in Latin), means that the state can show the court sufficient evidence that -- if this evidence is accepted as true (i.e., viewed "on its face") -- the court can conclude that a crime has been committed and the defendant probably committed it. This is not about "reasonable doubt" or gathering evidence (that happens during the discovery phase of a trial) or arguing the merits of the case. It is, once again, merely a check on the prosecution's power to charge people incorrectly/unfairly -- they have to show that they have some evidence, that if it is accepted as true, would sustain their charges. Obviously, if the prosecution cannot produce such evidence, it would be inappropriate for the judge to send the case to trial.
I mention this background because it is useful in understanding what happened today. As you read this, keep in mind that, while the defense has a right to call witnesses and cross-examine the state's witnesses, it can only do so to negate the state's case (i.e. show that even if you accept the state's evidence as true, it doesn't sufficiently show that the defendant committed the crime). Again, this is not a time for the defense to do discovery or question the credibility of witnesses (for the purposes of a preliminary hearing, their testimony is accepted as true).
Accordingly, the fact that the hearing went the way it did tells us a lot about the defense strategy: By making the victim testify and pushing her as hard as they can (more on this below), they are sending a message that they're going to go after this innocent, 12 year old girl if the case doesn't plead out [Editor's Note: I realize that her name has been published on other websites, but in order to protect her privacy, I suggest that we stop using even her first name and refer to her either as "the victim" or AO -- because seriously, guys, who would want this shit popping up in a Google search of their name for the rest of their lives]. It's not an uncommon strategy. And, sadly, it's quite often an effective one.
My last update left off with me sitting next to the step-dad, aunt, and "B-mum" with step-dad going off to pick AO up from her friend's house because she had suddenly been called to testify. The three adults do, as several posters have surmised, seem like stereotypical country folk. The father -- a balding, weathered man in clothes that suggested a physically strenuous occupation -- seemed to be genuinely overwhelmed. He commented to me that "I've never been to a place like this before." I assumed he meant to a courthouse for a criminal proceeding. I replied that I hadn't either (this was, indeed, the first time I'd been to a magistrate's court in an actual trailer, although I've been to several that were similarly unimposing). B-mum and aunt were genuinely kind and gentle people. Not the horrible, intolerant rednecks that everyone seems to think. B-mum even gave me the pen and paper that I used to take notes at the hearing after I was a typical sperg and forgot mine in the car. And this was after she knew I was a blogger/"online reporter" (and heaven knows the internet has not been kind to her son).
That said, she and the aunt are simple folk (the aunt shares the Stoutzenberger family teeth, but B-mum seems in surprisingly good shape for her age) and do genuinely seem to have convinced themselves that Nick is innocent. The aunt remarked how all the news reports have been "filled with inaccuracies" [Editor's Note: rates optimistic]. B-mum concurred and said she had "turned everything off" for a few weeks and wanted to "hear more positive stories on the news." Given that the father, mother, and AO are still living together, I can only imagine what this state of affairs is doing to the family dynamic.
The hearing itself was relatively short, with only two witnesses called. The second was The Detective (TD), but all she was there to do was the usual "yep, I arrested him, and on these charges." She wasn't cross-examined.
The victim's testimony, however, was unnerving; even for someone like me who's spent a significant amount of time working in courtrooms. Also, as I remarked about TD earlier, almost everyone there looked as if they came straight from central casting. The prosecutor was a pretty and eager young brunette, seemingly fresh out of law school. The public defender was a heavyset, gray-haired gentleman who absolutely oozed with "good ol' boy" charm/sleaze. And, as you can see from the perp walk, the constable was a total badass (my, oh my, did he rock those shades).
The victim's direct examination was relatively straightforward; she told everyone who she was, who Nick was, and what had happened. Out of respect for her, I won't go into details, but I will say both that the things she described were brutal and disgusting to a degree far beyond what has previously been reported, and that her testimony was both assured and utterly convincing, which made having to listen to it all the more horrible.
However, even in the middle of her direct, the Sleazy Defense Counsel (SDC) started in with what I consider to be inappropriate gamesmanship. He interrupted and asked AO directly to speak up (it was a small room, I was at the back of it, and I heard her just fine). I realize better than most that every defendant is entitled to a zealous and competent defense. I think that's a good thing -- a wonderful thing even -- about our society. And sometimes a zealous defense means callously working to discredit an innocent 12 year old girl. But it does not mean actively doing things that (at least from my perspective) serve no purpose other than intimidating her.
The prosecutor, while generally excellent (which is not surprising -- these days you have to have superb credentials to get any prosecutor's job straight out of law school), unfortunately played into this a little bit (in my opinion) by asking questions that weren't necessary to make her prima facie case (e.g., "So, when you say you sucked it, what do you mean by that?").
But it was on cross-examination that SDC got significantly out of line. He began by making her repeat/confirm pretty much everything she said on direct and then kept pressing her for specificity on dates/times/logistical details (including such things as exactly how Nick pulled the victim's shirt up). The prosecutor objected (and her objections were sustained) on three different occasions that SDC's questions constituted a "fishing expedition," in which he was trying to discredit AO and try the case on the merits rather than contest the commonwealth's prima facie case that a crime had occurred and that Nick had committed it.
Obviously, after the victim's testimony, the judge found that the commonwealth had met its prima facie burden and sent the case over to the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas for a formal arraignment/trial.
After the hearing, TD, the prosecutor, the bailiff, and the constable were chatting and TD called me over and asked about my accent. After chatting for a bit, I asked if I could ask her a question in return: "So, were you the one who got the video?" She replied that she was, but that Nick didn't actually attach it to the email, but rather "threatened" (her wording) to send it to her. She remarked that she had found it on ED in the course of her research and, while smiling ever so slightly, informed me that "several" of her colleagues have seen it. She asked where she could read more, so I gave her the web address.
If you're reading this, Detective, please allow me to second everybody else here in commending you for your work. You put in a ton of effort and waded through a ton of muck and filth (both literally and figuratively) to help make the world a better and safer place.
Anyway, the long and the short of it is that (a) Sick Nick is going to be in prison for a long time at the end of this, (b) a bunch of people in Lancaster County now know, or shortly will know, about the Farms, and (c) AO is tough as nails. After dealing with what must be an utterly insane home life even apart from this case, she seems remarkably well-adjusted. It's a real tragedy that she has to go through this.
I'll answer more questions later, but for now it's time to distract myself with CGI dinosaurs. It's been a sincerely exhausting day. Goodnight everybody.
Ed Note: Here's the link to the forum post: https://kiwifar.ms/threads/nick-bate-2-the-reckoning.9293/page-96
Reading this made me feel sick to my stomach. I can't imagine what AO had to go through. Especially, reliving it by having to testify in court. Sick Nick deserves the full 40 years and then some.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)