Annonymous exposes Steubenville Rape Case (1 Viewer)

[pantherclub]

Question from a pc illiterate. How do these guys hack accounts?

 

[BigJohn]

Glad that kid in the video isn't named John Smith - a Google search of his name will likely keep him from getting a good job, dates, etc. for some time.

He was already kicked out of college.

Kicked out or did he withdraw on his own?

Not sure. I only know from Ohio State's twitter feed.

OhioState ‏@OhioState Michael Nodianos is no longer a student at The Ohio State University.

this says he dropped out

Well, either way, he knows he's ####ed.

 

[Koya]

Yeah this is pretty ugly. I have to give some credit to Roseanne Barr. She has been all over this for a while trying to draw attention to it.

Didn't know that. I'll have to read what she has to say. Also, I give credit to Anonymous. At first, I was weary of their vigilante justice but their ability to get to this information not available to most anyone else should prove vital. The more they step into these situations, the more I find myself liking them.

I hope it causes other people to reconsider their judgments on Anonymous and Wikileaks. These groups are the ones exposing the cover ups and unethical behavior of people with power. Of course they are going to get smeared in much of the mainstream media, but we should all make our own informed judgements. This is a kind ofpower that the masses have rarely ever had against the elites of society. Instead of having to wait 50 years for historians to dig up the truth, we can know the truth now. That can be powerful.

The issue re: groups like Anonymous and Wikileaks is where do you draw the line? What happens when (not if), innocent people are wrongly implicated? What responsibility do these groups have to ensure that no real harm is done in the name of (viglante?) justice.In addition, there are causes where you do not have a clear right/wrong. The Israel issue for example and Anonymous going after Israeli related websites regarding the Palestinian issue. Who's fight are they fighting there, and for what reasons / causes?In a case like this, it's hard not to like the vigilante... but we do have a system of justice for a reason. I applaud the efforts of these organizations to hold the system of justice accountable, but it's a very fine line between becoming the judge, jury and executioner themselves.This gets even more meddled when you bring in the concept of power corrupts - who is to say that such groups do not eventually use these powers at best in an uneven manner, at worst to benefit / harm certain groups and interests for less than altruistic reasons (personal beliefs of its members, potential monetary influence etc).That said, when you look at a case by case basis, their role here could be invaluable to hold accountable the youths who acted as monsters, and the real monsters who have perpetuated such a lifestyle without accountability including covering up these most heinous acts. Hard to shed a tear if something happens to one of the people responsible for what happened to this girl...but again, that's where the line to vigilante justice and a call for a lynching occurs and at that point mob mentality and vengeance may do more harm than good, especially when (not it) someone who actually is innocent gets caught in the public furor.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Question from a pc illiterate. How do these guys hack accounts?

Sometimes it is simply data mining. Collect all the info you can about a person (pretty easy with social media) then answer their security questions.

 

[Black Box]

The issue re: groups like Anonymous and Wikileaks is where do you draw the line? What happens when (not if), innocent people are wrongly implicated? What responsibility do these groups have to ensure that no real harm is done in the name of (viglante?) justice.In addition, there are causes where you do not have a clear right/wrong. The Israel issue for example and Anonymous going after Israeli related websites regarding the Palestinian issue. Who's fight are they fighting there, and for what reasons / causes?In a case like this, it's hard not to like the vigilante... but we do have a system of justice for a reason. I applaud the efforts of these organizations to hold the system of justice accountable, but it's a very fine line between becoming the judge, jury and executioner themselves.This gets even more meddled when you bring in the concept of power corrupts - who is to say that such groups do not eventually use these powers at best in an uneven manner, at worst to benefit / harm certain groups and interests for less than altruistic reasons (personal beliefs of its members, potential monetary influence etc).That said, when you look at a case by case basis, their role here could be invaluable to hold accountable the youths who acted as monsters, and the real monsters who have perpetuated such a lifestyle without accountability including covering up these most heinous acts. Hard to shed a tear if something happens to one of the people responsible for what happened to this girl...but again, that's where the line to vigilante justice and a call for a lynching occurs and at that point mob mentality and vengeance may do more harm than good, especially when (not it) someone who actually is innocent gets caught in the public furor.

 

[Henry Ford]

Yeah this is pretty ugly. I have to give some credit to Roseanne Barr. She has been all over this for a while trying to draw attention to it.

Didn't know that. I'll have to read what she has to say. Also, I give credit to Anonymous. At first, I was weary of their vigilante justice but their ability to get to this information not available to most anyone else should prove vital. The more they step into these situations, the more I find myself liking them.

I hope it causes other people to reconsider their judgments on Anonymous and Wikileaks. These groups are the ones exposing the cover ups and unethical behavior of people with power. Of course they are going to get smeared in much of the mainstream media, but we should all make our own informed judgements. This is a kind ofpower that the masses have rarely ever had against the elites of society. Instead of having to wait 50 years for historians to dig up the truth, we can know the truth now. That can be powerful.

The issue re: groups like Anonymous and Wikileaks is where do you draw the line? What happens when (not if), innocent people are wrongly implicated? What responsibility do these groups have to ensure that no real harm is done in the name of (viglante?) justice.In addition, there are causes where you do not have a clear right/wrong. The Israel issue for example and Anonymous going after Israeli related websites regarding the Palestinian issue. Who's fight are they fighting there, and for what reasons / causes?In a case like this, it's hard not to like the vigilante... but we do have a system of justice for a reason. I applaud the efforts of these organizations to hold the system of justice accountable, but it's a very fine line between becoming the judge, jury and executioner themselves.This gets even more meddled when you bring in the concept of power corrupts - who is to say that such groups do not eventually use these powers at best in an uneven manner, at worst to benefit / harm certain groups and interests for less than altruistic reasons (personal beliefs of its members, potential monetary influence etc).That said, when you look at a case by case basis, their role here could be invaluable to hold accountable the youths who acted as monsters, and the real monsters who have perpetuated such a lifestyle without accountability including covering up these most heinous acts. Hard to shed a tear if something happens to one of the people responsible for what happened to this girl...but again, that's where the line to vigilante justice and a call for a lynching occurs and at that point mob mentality and vengeance may do more harm than good, especially when (not it) someone who actually is innocent gets caught in the public furor.

I'd say that collecting evidence, publicly releasing it, and calling for prosecution fall well on the "alright by me" side of the line.Claiming that someone is guilty of a crime in a public setting is a pretty far cry from lynching and vigilante justice.That said, they broke laws. If their identities are discovered, they'll probably have to answer for that. They're aware.

 

[Koya]

Yeah this is pretty ugly. I have to give some credit to Roseanne Barr. She has been all over this for a while trying to draw attention to it.

Didn't know that. I'll have to read what she has to say. Also, I give credit to Anonymous. At first, I was weary of their vigilante justice but their ability to get to this information not available to most anyone else should prove vital. The more they step into these situations, the more I find myself liking them.

I hope it causes other people to reconsider their judgments on Anonymous and Wikileaks. These groups are the ones exposing the cover ups and unethical behavior of people with power. Of course they are going to get smeared in much of the mainstream media, but we should all make our own informed judgements. This is a kind ofpower that the masses have rarely ever had against the elites of society. Instead of having to wait 50 years for historians to dig up the truth, we can know the truth now. That can be powerful.

The issue re: groups like Anonymous and Wikileaks is where do you draw the line? What happens when (not if), innocent people are wrongly implicated? What responsibility do these groups have to ensure that no real harm is done in the name of (viglante?) justice.In addition, there are causes where you do not have a clear right/wrong. The Israel issue for example and Anonymous going after Israeli related websites regarding the Palestinian issue. Who's fight are they fighting there, and for what reasons / causes?In a case like this, it's hard not to like the vigilante... but we do have a system of justice for a reason. I applaud the efforts of these organizations to hold the system of justice accountable, but it's a very fine line between becoming the judge, jury and executioner themselves.This gets even more meddled when you bring in the concept of power corrupts - who is to say that such groups do not eventually use these powers at best in an uneven manner, at worst to benefit / harm certain groups and interests for less than altruistic reasons (personal beliefs of its members, potential monetary influence etc).That said, when you look at a case by case basis, their role here could be invaluable to hold accountable the youths who acted as monsters, and the real monsters who have perpetuated such a lifestyle without accountability including covering up these most heinous acts. Hard to shed a tear if something happens to one of the people responsible for what happened to this girl...but again, that's where the line to vigilante justice and a call for a lynching occurs and at that point mob mentality and vengeance may do more harm than good, especially when (not it) someone who actually is innocent gets caught in the public furor.

I'd say that collecting evidence, publicly releasing it, and calling for prosecution fall well on the "alright by me" side of the line.Claiming that someone is guilty of a crime in a public setting is a pretty far cry from lynching and vigilante justice.That said, they broke laws. If their identities are discovered, they'll probably have to answer for that. They're aware.

I am not really talking about this case in particular... this is a pretty black and white issue (at least so it seems) of a small town cover up / not really looking into a matter with huge implications due to the severity of the crimes.My comment was more directed toward the general through towards such groups - yes, they definitely serve a valuable purpose, but we must be wary not to do more harm than good in the name of want for justice.

 

[Keerock]

Yeah this is pretty ugly. I have to give some credit to Roseanne Barr. She has been all over this for a while trying to draw attention to it.

Didn't know that. I'll have to read what she has to say. Also, I give credit to Anonymous. At first, I was weary of their vigilante justice but their ability to get to this information not available to most anyone else should prove vital. The more they step into these situations, the more I find myself liking them.

I hope it causes other people to reconsider their judgments on Anonymous and Wikileaks. These groups are the ones exposing the cover ups and unethical behavior of people with power. Of course they are going to get smeared in much of the mainstream media, but we should all make our own informed judgements. This is a kind ofpower that the masses have rarely ever had against the elites of society. Instead of having to wait 50 years for historians to dig up the truth, we can know the truth now. That can be powerful.

The issue re: groups like Anonymous and Wikileaks is where do you draw the line? What happens when (not if), innocent people are wrongly implicated? What responsibility do these groups have to ensure that no real harm is done in the name of (viglante?) justice.In addition, there are causes where you do not have a clear right/wrong. The Israel issue for example and Anonymous going after Israeli related websites regarding the Palestinian issue. Who's fight are they fighting there, and for what reasons / causes?In a case like this, it's hard not to like the vigilante... but we do have a system of justice for a reason. I applaud the efforts of these organizations to hold the system of justice accountable, but it's a very fine line between becoming the judge, jury and executioner themselves.This gets even more meddled when you bring in the concept of power corrupts - who is to say that such groups do not eventually use these powers at best in an uneven manner, at worst to benefit / harm certain groups and interests for less than altruistic reasons (personal beliefs of its members, potential monetary influence etc).That said, when you look at a case by case basis, their role here could be invaluable to hold accountable the youths who acted as monsters, and the real monsters who have perpetuated such a lifestyle without accountability including covering up these most heinous acts. Hard to shed a tear if something happens to one of the people responsible for what happened to this girl...but again, that's where the line to vigilante justice and a call for a lynching occurs and at that point mob mentality and vengeance may do more harm than good, especially when (not it) someone who actually is innocent gets caught in the public furor.

I'd say that collecting evidence, publicly releasing it, and calling for prosecution fall well on the "alright by me" side of the line.Claiming that someone is guilty of a crime in a public setting is a pretty far cry from lynching and vigilante justice.That said, they broke laws. If their identities are discovered, they'll probably have to answer for that. They're aware.

Dexter + Anonymous =

 

[Ilov80s]

Yeah this is pretty ugly. I have to give some credit to Roseanne Barr. She has been all over this for a while trying to draw attention to it.

Didn't know that. I'll have to read what she has to say. Also, I give credit to Anonymous. At first, I was weary of their vigilante justice but their ability to get to this information not available to most anyone else should prove vital. The more they step into these situations, the more I find myself liking them.

I hope it causes other people to reconsider their judgments on Anonymous and Wikileaks. These groups are the ones exposing the cover ups and unethical behavior of people with power. Of course they are going to get smeared in much of the mainstream media, but we should all make our own informed judgements. This is a kind ofpower that the masses have rarely ever had against the elites of society. Instead of having to wait 50 years for historians to dig up the truth, we can know the truth now. That can be powerful.

The issue re: groups like Anonymous and Wikileaks is where do you draw the line? What happens when (not if), innocent people are wrongly implicated? What responsibility do these groups have to ensure that no real harm is done in the name of (viglante?) justice.In addition, there are causes where you do not have a clear right/wrong. The Israel issue for example and Anonymous going after Israeli related websites regarding the Palestinian issue. Who's fight are they fighting there, and for what reasons / causes?In a case like this, it's hard not to like the vigilante... but we do have a system of justice for a reason. I applaud the efforts of these organizations to hold the system of justice accountable, but it's a very fine line between becoming the judge, jury and executioner themselves.This gets even more meddled when you bring in the concept of power corrupts - who is to say that such groups do not eventually use these powers at best in an uneven manner, at worst to benefit / harm certain groups and interests for less than altruistic reasons (personal beliefs of its members, potential monetary influence etc).That said, when you look at a case by case basis, their role here could be invaluable to hold accountable the youths who acted as monsters, and the real monsters who have perpetuated such a lifestyle without accountability including covering up these most heinous acts. Hard to shed a tear if something happens to one of the people responsible for what happened to this girl...but again, that's where the line to vigilante justice and a call for a lynching occurs and at that point mob mentality and vengeance may do more harm than good, especially when (not it) someone who actually is innocent gets caught in the public furor.

I am confused why this group should be responsible for how people react to the information they release? If 20/20 has some exposé piece, are they responsible for people's reactions to it? I also don't understand your other point. You seem to be saying since there is corruption, we can't risk having these groups exposing the corruption because they might become corrupt.

 

[biggamer3]

I read the nyt article and that live leak article. Besides for not charging that kid from the YouTube with any crime so far (could be because a lack of evidence of him actually raping her) the police seemed to have done a proper job. They interviewed everyone at those parties, they confiscated 15 phones. I guess they dropped charges against that one kid as well, but this does not sound like a police coverup at all. The trial was set for February, nothing was being swept under the rug

 

[MAC_32]

From the NYT article:

Shawn Crosier, the principal of Steubenville High, and Michael McVey, the superintendent of Steubenville schools, said they entrusted [football coach Reno] Saccoccia with determining whether any players should be disciplined for what they might have done or saw the night of Aug. 11. Neither Crosier nor McVey spoke to any students about the events of that summer night, they said, because they were satisfied that [Coach] Saccoccia would handle it.

Jebus ... this is basically instant replay.

So, in Ohio, the chain of command goes like this: local police->state police->FBI->high school football coach.

Absolutely. Every town in Ohio is identical.

A lot of people I know wished this city fell into the Ohio River and into West Virginia long before this #### happened.Cannot emphasize enough, total #### hole.

 

[BigJohn]

I read the nyt article and that live leak article. Besides for not charging that kid from the YouTube with any crime so far (could be because a lack of evidence of him actually raping her) the police seemed to have done a proper job. They interviewed everyone at those parties, they confiscated 15 phones. I guess they dropped charges against that one kid as well, but this does not sound like a police coverup at all. The trial was set for February, nothing was being swept under the rug

The allegation is that they drug their feet so they wouldn't keep the kids from playing football.

 

[Abraham]

Question from a pc illiterate. How do these guys hack accounts?

Some of it is that they are very good at using computers, and some of it is data mining and utilizing the fact that most people are not aware of how much of a track of breadcrumbs they leave on the internet.It's also important to remember in the discussion of Anonymous being on the side of "right" or "wrong" and comparing this instance to the Israel stuff that ANonymous is not a singular organization with a central leader and mission statement. It's a group of people with very diverse skill sets and interests and affiliations.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I read the nyt article and that live leak article. Besides for not charging that kid from the YouTube with any crime so far (could be because a lack of evidence of him actually raping her) the police seemed to have done a proper job. They interviewed everyone at those parties, they confiscated 15 phones. I guess they dropped charges against that one kid as well, but this does not sound like a police coverup at all. The trial was set for February, nothing was being swept under the rug

I obviously mostly agree. I will say that the "best" evidence of a coverup, or at least the decision that might be most easily publically criticized, is the decision to try the assailants as juveniles. Because juvenile records are closed, you could argue that the prosecutors made a knowing decision to try the case so as to elude public scrutiny.I think the LocalLinks page is pretty different from WikiLinks as I understand it. Whatever we feel about publishing private personal information and/or confidential government information on-line (and how we feel and what the law allows may be two different things), the LocalLinks page does a lot more than that. It casts a lot of innuendo. It asserts conspiracies and cover-ups without a lot of documentary evidence. It suggests that certain accessories must have participated in the rape. I'm not surprised that there have been defamation lawsuits (which I still think will be very hard to win because of the public concern in the case, but still). I don't think the site asks any inappropriate questions, but I question it to the extent that it seems to think it already knows the answers.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The allegation is that they drug their feet so they wouldn't keep the kids from playing football.

That doesn't seem consistent with what I've read. The two accused assailants, who were expected to be the team's star QB and WR, didn't play. Steubenville ended up going a disappointing (for them) 9-3.

 

[Koya]

Yeah this is pretty ugly. I have to give some credit to Roseanne Barr. She has been all over this for a while trying to draw attention to it.

Didn't know that. I'll have to read what she has to say. Also, I give credit to Anonymous. At first, I was weary of their vigilante justice but their ability to get to this information not available to most anyone else should prove vital. The more they step into these situations, the more I find myself liking them.

I hope it causes other people to reconsider their judgments on Anonymous and Wikileaks. These groups are the ones exposing the cover ups and unethical behavior of people with power. Of course they are going to get smeared in much of the mainstream media, but we should all make our own informed judgements. This is a kind ofpower that the masses have rarely ever had against the elites of society. Instead of having to wait 50 years for historians to dig up the truth, we can know the truth now. That can be powerful.

The issue re: groups like Anonymous and Wikileaks is where do you draw the line? What happens when (not if), innocent people are wrongly implicated? What responsibility do these groups have to ensure that no real harm is done in the name of (viglante?) justice.In addition, there are causes where you do not have a clear right/wrong. The Israel issue for example and Anonymous going after Israeli related websites regarding the Palestinian issue. Who's fight are they fighting there, and for what reasons / causes?In a case like this, it's hard not to like the vigilante... but we do have a system of justice for a reason. I applaud the efforts of these organizations to hold the system of justice accountable, but it's a very fine line between becoming the judge, jury and executioner themselves.This gets even more meddled when you bring in the concept of power corrupts - who is to say that such groups do not eventually use these powers at best in an uneven manner, at worst to benefit / harm certain groups and interests for less than altruistic reasons (personal beliefs of its members, potential monetary influence etc).That said, when you look at a case by case basis, their role here could be invaluable to hold accountable the youths who acted as monsters, and the real monsters who have perpetuated such a lifestyle without accountability including covering up these most heinous acts. Hard to shed a tear if something happens to one of the people responsible for what happened to this girl...but again, that's where the line to vigilante justice and a call for a lynching occurs and at that point mob mentality and vengeance may do more harm than good, especially when (not it) someone who actually is innocent gets caught in the public furor.

I am confused why this group should be responsible for how people react to the information they release? If 20/20 has some exposé piece, are they responsible for people's reactions to it? I also don't understand your other point. You seem to be saying since there is corruption, we can't risk having these groups exposing the corruption because they might become corrupt.

I am not stating that the group should hold back on releasing information. Outside of acute cases, hard to argue with disclosure and transparency.That said, when you look to deface websites or halt business or potentially disrupt operations / finances etc, it's a new ballgame. Then it comes down to if the efforts are being done for the "good guys" or "bad guys" and while many cases are clear on who is who in that equation, sometimes it is not crystal clear. My point here is more theoretical than based on specific actions. It is easy to be enamored with a group that seeks justice, however my word of caution is to ensure that such efforts don't become blind vigilantism, albeit in the electronic age.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Take for instance the allegation against the local County Prosecutor. I One of the charges against the prosecutor is that she discouraged the victim from pressing charges by telling her that she would face scrutiny, both in the courtroom and in the press, and that the investigation and trial could take two years.Those things are likely true. I'm not sure I wouldn't tell the victim the exact same things, no matter how much I wanted the charges pressed. She's going to be one of my chief witnesses (in most cases, she'd be THE chief witness, this case is somewhat unique). I need her to trust me. Which means I need to tell her the truth from the outset. The process is going to be really, really hard. Maybe the local Prosecutor is biased. But I don't see how the evidence asserted really shows that. I'd like to know how the decision was made to prosecute the assailants as juveniles, but the rest of the allegations strike me as silly.

 

[Koya]

Question from a pc illiterate. How do these guys hack accounts?

Some of it is that they are very good at using computers, and some of it is data mining and utilizing the fact that most people are not aware of how much of a track of breadcrumbs they leave on the internet.It's also important to remember in the discussion of Anonymous being on the side of "right" or "wrong" and comparing this instance to the Israel stuff that ANonymous is not a singular organization with a central leader and mission statement. It's a group of people with very diverse skill sets and interests and affiliations.

That is a very good and fair point (the fact that Anonymous is not a centrally led organization) - which has its upside and downside(s) as well. Again, my general point is for us to be cautious is all and not get caught up in a fervor of vigilantism, revenge, etc. Doesn't matter if thats due to Anonymous, Wikileaks or any other group, organized, decentralized or otherwise.

 

[tdoss]

The allegation is that they drug their feet so they wouldn't keep the kids from playing football.

That doesn't seem consistent with what I've read. The two accused assailants, who were expected to be the team's star QB and WR, didn't play. Steubenville ended up going a disappointing (for them) 9-3.

The coach, who appears to be good friends with the sheriff, delayed officers from getting to the players...while telling the players to "delete everything". The sheriff obtained the phones and "inadvertently" deleted many photos.There are other assailants in this case.There are other victims than this one.

 

[Koya]

Take for instance the allegation against the local County Prosecutor. I One of the charges against the prosecutor is that she discouraged the victim from pressing charges by telling her that she would face scrutiny, both in the courtroom and in the press, and that the investigation and trial could take two years.

Those things are likely true. I'm not sure I wouldn't tell the victim the exact same things, no matter how much I wanted the charges pressed. She's going to be one of my chief witnesses (in most cases, she'd be THE chief witness, this case is somewhat unique). I need her to trust me. Which means I need to tell her the truth from the outset. The process is going to be really, really hard.

Maybe the local Prosecutor is biased. But I don't see how the evidence asserted really shows that. I'd like to know how the decision was made to prosecute the assailants as juveniles, but the rest of the allegations strike me as silly.

Am I wrong, or did I read that the Prosecutor's SON is one of the team members and perhaps part of / affiliated with the group who did this?

 

[pantherclub]

I read the nyt article and that live leak article. Besides for not charging that kid from the YouTube with any crime so far (could be because a lack of evidence of him actually raping her) the police seemed to have done a proper job. They interviewed everyone at those parties, they confiscated 15 phones. I guess they dropped charges against that one kid as well, but this does not sound like a police coverup at all. The trial was set for February, nothing was being swept under the rug

your kidding right?

 

[tdoss]

Take for instance the allegation against the local County Prosecutor. I One of the charges against the prosecutor is that she discouraged the victim from pressing charges by telling her that she would face scrutiny, both in the courtroom and in the press, and that the investigation and trial could take two years.Those things are likely true. I'm not sure I wouldn't tell the victim the exact same things, no matter how much I wanted the charges pressed. She's going to be one of my chief witnesses (in most cases, she'd be THE chief witness, this case is somewhat unique). I need her to trust me. Which means I need to tell her the truth from the outset. The process is going to be really, really hard. Maybe the local Prosecutor is biased. But I don't see how the evidence asserted really shows that. I'd like to know how the decision was made to prosecute the assailants as juveniles, but the rest of the allegations strike me as silly.

Read the local leaks article...it talks about how the prosecutor has assisted the players before and one current player lists her home as his...possibly getting around the rule of needing residence in the town to be eligible.It's all sketchy...but you sketch enough and you can get a pretty clear picture.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Read the local leaks article...it talks about how the prosecutor has assisted the players before and one current player lists her home as his...possibly getting around the rule of needing residence in the town to be eligible.It's all sketchy...but you sketch enough and you can get a pretty clear picture.

I did read the LocalLinks article. The prosecutor has served as a character reference for a former player in West Virginia. She apparently also represented the State's investigator who has opined on the investigation conducted by the Steubenville PD. A vandalism prosecution relating to team members was apparently not completed. And she has a son on the team (who the website claims to be a member of the "Rape Crew", without offering any documentation that he was involved). Hanlin has denied the allegation that one of the parties was at her house (a fact the LocalLinks article does not report). The LocalLinks article also doesn't mention one pretty big detail. Hanlin recused herself from the case months ago. The decision on whether to charge the assailants as juveniles was made by a special prosecutor from the Ohio AG's office appointed by the Court of Common Pleas for Jefferson County.EDIT: One big clue that the LocalLinks blogger might have some credibility issues (whether deliberate or unintentional) is that she refers to the County Prosecutor as "The Honorable Jane Hanlin." County Prosecutor's aren't judges. Crime reporters, even "crime bloggers" should presumably know that.

 

[bigbottom]

Glad that kid in the video isn't named John Smith - a Google search of his name will likely keep him from getting a good job, dates, etc. for some time.

He was already kicked out of college.

Kicked out or did he withdraw on his own?

Not sure. I only know from Ohio State's twitter feed.

OhioState ‏@OhioState Michael Nodianos is no longer a student at The Ohio State University.

this says he dropped out

Well, either way, he knows he's ####ed.

I bet that was some unwelcome publicity for OSU.

 

[BigJohn]

Glad that kid in the video isn't named John Smith - a Google search of his name will likely keep him from getting a good job, dates, etc. for some time.

He was already kicked out of college.

Kicked out or did he withdraw on his own?

Not sure. I only know from Ohio State's twitter feed.

OhioState ‏@OhioState Michael Nodianos is no longer a student at The Ohio State University.

this says he dropped out

Well, either way, he knows he's ####ed.

I bet that was some unwelcome publicity for OSU.

 

[biggamer3]

The allegation is that they drug their feet so they wouldn't keep the kids from playing football.

That doesn't seem consistent with what I've read. The two accused assailants, who were expected to be the team's star QB and WR, didn't play. Steubenville ended up going a disappointing (for them) 9-3.

The coach, who appears to be good friends with the sheriff, delayed officers from getting to the players...while telling the players to "delete everything". The sheriff obtained the phones and "inadvertently" deleted many photos.There are other assailants in this case.There are other victims than this one.

where did you get this from, if any of this is true then that is criminal activity on behalf of the police

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

One other point. In the section on Hanlin, the blogger alleges that the victim was dragged to the Hanlin house.In the "What Really Happened" Section the blogger then constructs a rough timeline of what happened. According to that timeline (paraphased):

The victim was picked up from a party in WVThe victim was roofied in the carThe victim was assulted at Assistant Coach Cameletti's houseThe victim was assaulted at Assistant Coach Belerdine's houseThe victim was assaulted in the car en route to Cole's houseThe victim was assulted at Cole's houseThe victim was transported to her home in WV.

I don't see any mention of Hanlin's house in that account. I imagine the blogger has received contradictory reports, but if so, the blogger should make that clear.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The allegation is that they drug their feet so they wouldn't keep the kids from playing football.

That doesn't seem consistent with what I've read. The two accused assailants, who were expected to be the team's star QB and WR, didn't play. Steubenville ended up going a disappointing (for them) 9-3.

The coach, who appears to be good friends with the sheriff, delayed officers from getting to the players...while telling the players to "delete everything". The sheriff obtained the phones and "inadvertently" deleted many photos.There are other assailants in this case.There are other victims than this one.

where did you get this from, if any of this is true then that is criminal activity on behalf of the police

I think tdoss is conflating a few things. The Sherrif, who is friends with the coach, didn't conduct the investigation. The Steubenville Police Department (headed by the Chief of Police) did. The victim's family reported the crime to the Steubenville PD, not the Jefferson County Sherrif's Dept. The LocalLinks article takes issue with the Sheriff not interposing himself in the investigation, but he never appears to have been involved.

 

[bigbottom]

Glad that kid in the video isn't named John Smith - a Google search of his name will likely keep him from getting a good job, dates, etc. for some time.

He was already kicked out of college.

Kicked out or did he withdraw on his own?

Not sure. I only know from Ohio State's twitter feed.

OhioState ‏@OhioState Michael Nodianos is no longer a student at The Ohio State University.

this says he dropped out

Well, either way, he knows he's ####ed.

I bet that was some unwelcome publicity for OSU.

You don't think it was? A video, now gone viral, of an OSU student, wearing an OSU shirt, joking and laughing uncontrollably about a girls rape and possible death for over ten minutes? Aside from the alleged rapists themselves, that kid is possibly the most hated person on the Internet right now.

 

[BigJohn]

Glad that kid in the video isn't named John Smith - a Google search of his name will likely keep him from getting a good job, dates, etc. for some time.

He was already kicked out of college.

Kicked out or did he withdraw on his own?

Not sure. I only know from Ohio State's twitter feed.

OhioState ‏@OhioState Michael Nodianos is no longer a student at The Ohio State University.

this says he dropped out

Well, either way, he knows he's ####ed.

I bet that was some unwelcome publicity for OSU.

You don't think it was? A video, now gone viral, of an OSU student, wearing an OSU shirt, joking and laughing uncontrollably about a girls rape and possible death for over ten minutes? Aside from the alleged rapists themselves, that kid is possibly the most hated person on the Internet right now.

Just havent seen any negativity towards the university at all. They had nothing to do with it.

 

[Class Dismissed]

The allegation is that they drug their feet so they wouldn't keep the kids from playing football.

That doesn't seem consistent with what I've read. The two accused assailants, who were expected to be the team's star QB and WR, didn't play. Steubenville ended up going a disappointing (for them) 9-3.

The coach, who appears to be good friends with the sheriff, delayed officers from getting to the players...while telling the players to "delete everything". The sheriff obtained the phones and "inadvertently" deleted many photos.There are other assailants in this case.There are other victims than this one.

where did you get this from, if any of this is true then that is criminal activity on behalf of the police

I think tdoss is conflating a few things. The Sherrif, who is friends with the coach, didn't conduct the investigation. The Steubenville Police Department (headed by the Chief of Police) did. The victim's family reported the crime to the Steubenville PD, not the Jefferson County Sherrif's Dept. The LocalLinks article takes issue with the Sheriff not interposing himself in the investigation, but he never appears to have been involved.

Not only that but they slam the Sheriff again for having a conflict of interest because he had breakfast twice with the football coach, at a bar that is apparently a drug den and a gambling mecca that the sheriff has ties to.So if you truly believe that, wouldn't you want the Steubenville PD to handle the investigation?

 

[General Malaise]

I read the nyt article and that live leak article. Besides for not charging that kid from the YouTube with any crime so far (could be because a lack of evidence of him actually raping her) the police seemed to have done a proper job. They interviewed everyone at those parties, they confiscated 15 phones. I guess they dropped charges against that one kid as well, but this does not sound like a police coverup at all. The trial was set for February, nothing was being swept under the rug

I obviously mostly agree. I will say that the "best" evidence of a coverup, or at least the decision that might be most easily publically criticized, is the decision to try the assailants as juveniles. Because juvenile records are closed, you could argue that the prosecutors made a knowing decision to try the case so as to elude public scrutiny.I think the LocalLinks page is pretty different from WikiLinks as I understand it. Whatever we feel about publishing private personal information and/or confidential government information on-line (and how we feel and what the law allows may be two different things), the LocalLinks page does a lot more than that. It casts a lot of innuendo. It asserts conspiracies and cover-ups without a lot of documentary evidence. It suggests that certain accessories must have participated in the rape. I'm not surprised that there have been defamation lawsuits (which I still think will be very hard to win because of the public concern in the case, but still). I don't think the site asks any inappropriate questions, but I question it to the extent that it seems to think it already knows the answers.

That was sort of my question last night in reading this...it read more like a "matter of fact" account of what happened than it did innuendo. How do they know the answers? They didn't just allege that the football coaches let the boys view porn, dabble in drugs and hang out in local bars - they stated it as a matter of fact. I've never stumbled on this site before and I'm not familiar with this sort of 'reporting' (not sure if that is even close to the right word) but I read the whole thing with my jaw on the floor. And let's say the town of Steubenville wants to fight back here. How do they do it? Who do they go after? Is the group "Knight Sec" identifiable in any way? Who gets sued here? This whole thing reads like a science fiction novel to me as I'm just not tuned in to what these "Anonymous" groups are all about, though I do feel like I'm ramping it up a bit.

Oh, and I did click on some other links (the linking on this site also puzzles me, it just threw me to different random blogs by strangers talking nothing about this case; never before has the internet seemed so foreign to me) and one of the sites I stumbled on alleges that "Anonymous" outed the wrong guy in the case of the 15-year old Canadian girl (Amanda Todd?) who committed suicide after a man posted topless pictures of her. I'd like to open up that conversation if anybody knows anything about it. From what I can gather, they set out to ruin this man's life for posting her picture, but they got the wrong dude? Holy mother forking crap...now THAT is scary!

 

[General Malaise]

Read the local leaks article...it talks about how the prosecutor has assisted the players before and one current player lists her home as his...possibly getting around the rule of needing residence in the town to be eligible.It's all sketchy...but you sketch enough and you can get a pretty clear picture.

I did read the LocalLinks article. The prosecutor has served as a character reference for a former player in West Virginia. She apparently also represented the State's investigator who has opined on the investigation conducted by the Steubenville PD. A vandalism prosecution relating to team members was apparently not completed. And she has a son on the team (who the website claims to be a member of the "Rape Crew", without offering any documentation that he was involved). Hanlin has denied the allegation that one of the parties was at her house (a fact the LocalLinks article does not report). The LocalLinks article also doesn't mention one pretty big detail. Hanlin recused herself from the case months ago. The decision on whether to charge the assailants as juveniles was made by a special prosecutor from the Ohio AG's office appointed by the Court of Common Pleas for Jefferson County.EDIT: One big clue that the LocalLinks blogger might have some credibility issues (whether deliberate or unintentional) is that she refers to the County Prosecutor as "The Honorable Jane Hanlin." County Prosecutor's aren't judges. Crime reporters, even "crime bloggers" should presumably know that.

There was also some pretty poor grammar that even I was able to spot out. Do they not have an editor? One other thing they point out is that Hanlin is on the school board, which apparently she was told was a conflict of interest. Doesn't sound like a big deal compared to the other allegations, but just wanted to include that for some reason.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

I read the nyt article and that live leak article. Besides for not charging that kid from the YouTube with any crime so far (could be because a lack of evidence of him actually raping her) the police seemed to have done a proper job. They interviewed everyone at those parties, they confiscated 15 phones. I guess they dropped charges against that one kid as well, but this does not sound like a police coverup at all. The trial was set for February, nothing was being swept under the rug

I obviously mostly agree. I will say that the "best" evidence of a coverup, or at least the decision that might be most easily publically criticized, is the decision to try the assailants as juveniles. Because juvenile records are closed, you could argue that the prosecutors made a knowing decision to try the case so as to elude public scrutiny.I think the LocalLinks page is pretty different from WikiLinks as I understand it. Whatever we feel about publishing private personal information and/or confidential government information on-line (and how we feel and what the law allows may be two different things), the LocalLinks page does a lot more than that. It casts a lot of innuendo. It asserts conspiracies and cover-ups without a lot of documentary evidence. It suggests that certain accessories must have participated in the rape. I'm not surprised that there have been defamation lawsuits (which I still think will be very hard to win because of the public concern in the case, but still). I don't think the site asks any inappropriate questions, but I question it to the extent that it seems to think it already knows the answers.

That was sort of my question last night in reading this...it read more like a "matter of fact" account of what happened than it did innuendo. How do they know the answers? They didn't just allege that the football coaches let the boys view porn, dabble in drugs and hang out in local bars - they stated it as a matter of fact. I've never stumbled on this site before and I'm not familiar with this sort of 'reporting' (not sure if that is even close to the right word) but I read the whole thing with my jaw on the floor. And let's say the town of Steubenville wants to fight back here. How do they do it? Who do they go after? Is the group "Knight Sec" identifiable in any way? Who gets sued here? This whole thing reads like a science fiction novel to me as I'm just not tuned in to what these "Anonymous" groups are all about, though I do feel like I'm ramping it up a bit.

Oh, and I did click on some other links (the linking on this site also puzzles me, it just threw me to different random blogs by strangers talking nothing about this case; never before has the internet seemed so foreign to me) and one of the sites I stumbled on alleges that "Anonymous" outed the wrong guy in the case of the 15-year old Canadian girl (Amanda Todd?) who committed suicide after a man posted topless pictures of her. I'd like to open up that conversation if anybody knows anything about it. From what I can gather, they set out to ruin this man's life for posting her picture, but they got the wrong dude? Holy mother forking crap...now THAT is scary!

This is the problem with Anonymous. I don't see this vaguely defined group of individuals as being much more than into hacking and some form of social anarchy against "the man". Sometimes they hit accurately, other times they don't. And I can easily see them getting full of themselves as self-appointed "crusaders" and taking more and more license in doing what they do. I read that article on Steubenville to be as filled with speculation and questionable assertions as facts. I'm sure they've got facts, but then they asser that legally bystanders are required to help someone being raped. Unless OH law is very different from everyone else, there isn't a legal duty absent a special relationship (e.g. parent-(minor) child; caregiver-patient; a person you've begun to save; etc.)

That's not to say that the wisecracking ######## on the video doesn't get what's coming to him, but that's poetic justice for a moral wrong rather than something he's earned by committing a crime.

 

[Slapdash]

I read the nyt article and that live leak article. Besides for not charging that kid from the YouTube with any crime so far (could be because a lack of evidence of him actually raping her) the police seemed to have done a proper job. They interviewed everyone at those parties, they confiscated 15 phones. I guess they dropped charges against that one kid as well, but this does not sound like a police coverup at all. The trial was set for February, nothing was being swept under the rug

I obviously mostly agree. I will say that the "best" evidence of a coverup, or at least the decision that might be most easily publically criticized, is the decision to try the assailants as juveniles. Because juvenile records are closed, you could argue that the prosecutors made a knowing decision to try the case so as to elude public scrutiny.I think the LocalLinks page is pretty different from WikiLinks as I understand it. Whatever we feel about publishing private personal information and/or confidential government information on-line (and how we feel and what the law allows may be two different things), the LocalLinks page does a lot more than that. It casts a lot of innuendo. It asserts conspiracies and cover-ups without a lot of documentary evidence. It suggests that certain accessories must have participated in the rape. I'm not surprised that there have been defamation lawsuits (which I still think will be very hard to win because of the public concern in the case, but still). I don't think the site asks any inappropriate questions, but I question it to the extent that it seems to think it already knows the answers.

That was sort of my question last night in reading this...it read more like a "matter of fact" account of what happened than it did innuendo. How do they know the answers? They didn't just allege that the football coaches let the boys view porn, dabble in drugs and hang out in local bars - they stated it as a matter of fact. I've never stumbled on this site before and I'm not familiar with this sort of 'reporting' (not sure if that is even close to the right word) but I read the whole thing with my jaw on the floor. And let's say the town of Steubenville wants to fight back here. How do they do it? Who do they go after? Is the group "Knight Sec" identifiable in any way? Who gets sued here? This whole thing reads like a science fiction novel to me as I'm just not tuned in to what these "Anonymous" groups are all about, though I do feel like I'm ramping it up a bit.

Oh, and I did click on some other links (the linking on this site also puzzles me, it just threw me to different random blogs by strangers talking nothing about this case; never before has the internet seemed so foreign to me) and one of the sites I stumbled on alleges that "Anonymous" outed the wrong guy in the case of the 15-year old Canadian girl (Amanda Todd?) who committed suicide after a man posted topless pictures of her. I'd like to open up that conversation if anybody knows anything about it. From what I can gather, they set out to ruin this man's life for posting her picture, but they got the wrong dude? Holy mother forking crap...now THAT is scary!

I guess I'm missing how this stuff is all too different than the regular press when considering how they reacted to the Newtown tragedy.

 

[General Malaise]

I read the nyt article and that live leak article. Besides for not charging that kid from the YouTube with any crime so far (could be because a lack of evidence of him actually raping her) the police seemed to have done a proper job. They interviewed everyone at those parties, they confiscated 15 phones. I guess they dropped charges against that one kid as well, but this does not sound like a police coverup at all. The trial was set for February, nothing was being swept under the rug

I obviously mostly agree. I will say that the "best" evidence of a coverup, or at least the decision that might be most easily publically criticized, is the decision to try the assailants as juveniles. Because juvenile records are closed, you could argue that the prosecutors made a knowing decision to try the case so as to elude public scrutiny.I think the LocalLinks page is pretty different from WikiLinks as I understand it. Whatever we feel about publishing private personal information and/or confidential government information on-line (and how we feel and what the law allows may be two different things), the LocalLinks page does a lot more than that. It casts a lot of innuendo. It asserts conspiracies and cover-ups without a lot of documentary evidence. It suggests that certain accessories must have participated in the rape. I'm not surprised that there have been defamation lawsuits (which I still think will be very hard to win because of the public concern in the case, but still). I don't think the site asks any inappropriate questions, but I question it to the extent that it seems to think it already knows the answers.

That was sort of my question last night in reading this...it read more like a "matter of fact" account of what happened than it did innuendo. How do they know the answers? They didn't just allege that the football coaches let the boys view porn, dabble in drugs and hang out in local bars - they stated it as a matter of fact. I've never stumbled on this site before and I'm not familiar with this sort of 'reporting' (not sure if that is even close to the right word) but I read the whole thing with my jaw on the floor. And let's say the town of Steubenville wants to fight back here. How do they do it? Who do they go after? Is the group "Knight Sec" identifiable in any way? Who gets sued here? This whole thing reads like a science fiction novel to me as I'm just not tuned in to what these "Anonymous" groups are all about, though I do feel like I'm ramping it up a bit.

Oh, and I did click on some other links (the linking on this site also puzzles me, it just threw me to different random blogs by strangers talking nothing about this case; never before has the internet seemed so foreign to me) and one of the sites I stumbled on alleges that "Anonymous" outed the wrong guy in the case of the 15-year old Canadian girl (Amanda Todd?) who committed suicide after a man posted topless pictures of her. I'd like to open up that conversation if anybody knows anything about it. From what I can gather, they set out to ruin this man's life for posting her picture, but they got the wrong dude? Holy mother forking crap...now THAT is scary!

I guess I'm missing how this stuff is all too different than the regular press when considering how they reacted to the Newtown tragedy.

meh...i'm not really interested in that hijack.

 

[Henry Ford]

I read the nyt article and that live leak article. Besides for not charging that kid from the YouTube with any crime so far (could be because a lack of evidence of him actually raping her) the police seemed to have done a proper job. They interviewed everyone at those parties, they confiscated 15 phones. I guess they dropped charges against that one kid as well, but this does not sound like a police coverup at all. The trial was set for February, nothing was being swept under the rug

I obviously mostly agree. I will say that the "best" evidence of a coverup, or at least the decision that might be most easily publically criticized, is the decision to try the assailants as juveniles. Because juvenile records are closed, you could argue that the prosecutors made a knowing decision to try the case so as to elude public scrutiny.I think the LocalLinks page is pretty different from WikiLinks as I understand it. Whatever we feel about publishing private personal information and/or confidential government information on-line (and how we feel and what the law allows may be two different things), the LocalLinks page does a lot more than that. It casts a lot of innuendo. It asserts conspiracies and cover-ups without a lot of documentary evidence. It suggests that certain accessories must have participated in the rape. I'm not surprised that there have been defamation lawsuits (which I still think will be very hard to win because of the public concern in the case, but still). I don't think the site asks any inappropriate questions, but I question it to the extent that it seems to think it already knows the answers.

That was sort of my question last night in reading this...it read more like a "matter of fact" account of what happened than it did innuendo. How do they know the answers? They didn't just allege that the football coaches let the boys view porn, dabble in drugs and hang out in local bars - they stated it as a matter of fact. I've never stumbled on this site before and I'm not familiar with this sort of 'reporting' (not sure if that is even close to the right word) but I read the whole thing with my jaw on the floor. And let's say the town of Steubenville wants to fight back here. How do they do it? Who do they go after? Is the group "Knight Sec" identifiable in any way? Who gets sued here? This whole thing reads like a science fiction novel to me as I'm just not tuned in to what these "Anonymous" groups are all about, though I do feel like I'm ramping it up a bit.

Oh, and I did click on some other links (the linking on this site also puzzles me, it just threw me to different random blogs by strangers talking nothing about this case; never before has the internet seemed so foreign to me) and one of the sites I stumbled on alleges that "Anonymous" outed the wrong guy in the case of the 15-year old Canadian girl (Amanda Todd?) who committed suicide after a man posted topless pictures of her. I'd like to open up that conversation if anybody knows anything about it. From what I can gather, they set out to ruin this man's life for posting her picture, but they got the wrong dude? Holy mother forking crap...now THAT is scary!

This is the problem with Anonymous. I don't see this vaguely defined group of individuals as being much more than into hacking and some form of social anarchy against "the man". Sometimes they hit accurately, other times they don't. And I can easily see them getting full of themselves as self-appointed "crusaders" and taking more and more license in doing what they do. I read that article on Steubenville to be as filled with speculation and questionable assertions as facts. I'm sure they've got facts, but then they asser that legally bystanders are required to help someone being raped. Unless OH law is very different from everyone else, there isn't a legal duty absent a special relationship (e.g. parent-(minor) child; caregiver-patient; a person you've begun to save; etc.)

That's not to say that the wisecracking ######## on the video doesn't get what's coming to him, but that's poetic justice for a moral wrong rather than something he's earned by committing a crime.

Ohio law requires witnesses to report the rape to the authorities.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

I read the nyt article and that live leak article. Besides for not charging that kid from the YouTube with any crime so far (could be because a lack of evidence of him actually raping her) the police seemed to have done a proper job. They interviewed everyone at those parties, they confiscated 15 phones. I guess they dropped charges against that one kid as well, but this does not sound like a police coverup at all. The trial was set for February, nothing was being swept under the rug

I obviously mostly agree. I will say that the "best" evidence of a coverup, or at least the decision that might be most easily publically criticized, is the decision to try the assailants as juveniles. Because juvenile records are closed, you could argue that the prosecutors made a knowing decision to try the case so as to elude public scrutiny.I think the LocalLinks page is pretty different from WikiLinks as I understand it. Whatever we feel about publishing private personal information and/or confidential government information on-line (and how we feel and what the law allows may be two different things), the LocalLinks page does a lot more than that. It casts a lot of innuendo. It asserts conspiracies and cover-ups without a lot of documentary evidence. It suggests that certain accessories must have participated in the rape. I'm not surprised that there have been defamation lawsuits (which I still think will be very hard to win because of the public concern in the case, but still). I don't think the site asks any inappropriate questions, but I question it to the extent that it seems to think it already knows the answers.

That was sort of my question last night in reading this...it read more like a "matter of fact" account of what happened than it did innuendo. How do they know the answers? They didn't just allege that the football coaches let the boys view porn, dabble in drugs and hang out in local bars - they stated it as a matter of fact. I've never stumbled on this site before and I'm not familiar with this sort of 'reporting' (not sure if that is even close to the right word) but I read the whole thing with my jaw on the floor. And let's say the town of Steubenville wants to fight back here. How do they do it? Who do they go after? Is the group "Knight Sec" identifiable in any way? Who gets sued here? This whole thing reads like a science fiction novel to me as I'm just not tuned in to what these "Anonymous" groups are all about, though I do feel like I'm ramping it up a bit.

Oh, and I did click on some other links (the linking on this site also puzzles me, it just threw me to different random blogs by strangers talking nothing about this case; never before has the internet seemed so foreign to me) and one of the sites I stumbled on alleges that "Anonymous" outed the wrong guy in the case of the 15-year old Canadian girl (Amanda Todd?) who committed suicide after a man posted topless pictures of her. I'd like to open up that conversation if anybody knows anything about it. From what I can gather, they set out to ruin this man's life for posting her picture, but they got the wrong dude? Holy mother forking crap...now THAT is scary!

This is the problem with Anonymous. I don't see this vaguely defined group of individuals as being much more than into hacking and some form of social anarchy against "the man". Sometimes they hit accurately, other times they don't. And I can easily see them getting full of themselves as self-appointed "crusaders" and taking more and more license in doing what they do. I read that article on Steubenville to be as filled with speculation and questionable assertions as facts. I'm sure they've got facts, but then they asser that legally bystanders are required to help someone being raped. Unless OH law is very different from everyone else, there isn't a legal duty absent a special relationship (e.g. parent-(minor) child; caregiver-patient; a person you've begun to save; etc.)

That's not to say that the wisecracking ######## on the video doesn't get what's coming to him, but that's poetic justice for a moral wrong rather than something he's earned by committing a crime.

Ohio law requires witnesses to report the rape to the authorities.

It was reported, wasn't it (by others, not video boy I gather)? I thought the major problem here was the authorities' (non-)response to the report.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I read the nyt article and that live leak article. Besides for not charging that kid from the YouTube with any crime so far (could be because a lack of evidence of him actually raping her) the police seemed to have done a proper job. They interviewed everyone at those parties, they confiscated 15 phones. I guess they dropped charges against that one kid as well, but this does not sound like a police coverup at all. The trial was set for February, nothing was being swept under the rug

I obviously mostly agree. I will say that the "best" evidence of a coverup, or at least the decision that might be most easily publically criticized, is the decision to try the assailants as juveniles. Because juvenile records are closed, you could argue that the prosecutors made a knowing decision to try the case so as to elude public scrutiny.I think the LocalLinks page is pretty different from WikiLinks as I understand it. Whatever we feel about publishing private personal information and/or confidential government information on-line (and how we feel and what the law allows may be two different things), the LocalLinks page does a lot more than that. It casts a lot of innuendo. It asserts conspiracies and cover-ups without a lot of documentary evidence. It suggests that certain accessories must have participated in the rape. I'm not surprised that there have been defamation lawsuits (which I still think will be very hard to win because of the public concern in the case, but still). I don't think the site asks any inappropriate questions, but I question it to the extent that it seems to think it already knows the answers.

That was sort of my question last night in reading this...it read more like a "matter of fact" account of what happened than it did innuendo. How do they know the answers? They didn't just allege that the football coaches let the boys view porn, dabble in drugs and hang out in local bars - they stated it as a matter of fact. I've never stumbled on this site before and I'm not familiar with this sort of 'reporting' (not sure if that is even close to the right word) but I read the whole thing with my jaw on the floor. And let's say the town of Steubenville wants to fight back here. How do they do it? Who do they go after? Is the group "Knight Sec" identifiable in any way? Who gets sued here? This whole thing reads like a science fiction novel to me as I'm just not tuned in to what these "Anonymous" groups are all about, though I do feel like I'm ramping it up a bit.

Oh, and I did click on some other links (the linking on this site also puzzles me, it just threw me to different random blogs by strangers talking nothing about this case; never before has the internet seemed so foreign to me) and one of the sites I stumbled on alleges that "Anonymous" outed the wrong guy in the case of the 15-year old Canadian girl (Amanda Todd?) who committed suicide after a man posted topless pictures of her. I'd like to open up that conversation if anybody knows anything about it. From what I can gather, they set out to ruin this man's life for posting her picture, but they got the wrong dude? Holy mother forking crap...now THAT is scary!

This is the problem with Anonymous. I don't see this vaguely defined group of individuals as being much more than into hacking and some form of social anarchy against "the man". Sometimes they hit accurately, other times they don't. And I can easily see them getting full of themselves as self-appointed "crusaders" and taking more and more license in doing what they do. I read that article on Steubenville to be as filled with speculation and questionable assertions as facts. I'm sure they've got facts, but then they asser that legally bystanders are required to help someone being raped. Unless OH law is very different from everyone else, there isn't a legal duty absent a special relationship (e.g. parent-(minor) child; caregiver-patient; a person you've begun to save; etc.)

That's not to say that the wisecracking ######## on the video doesn't get what's coming to him, but that's poetic justice for a moral wrong rather than something he's earned by committing a crime.

I feel the need to address the bolded part. Anonymous is not just teenage kiddy scripters some of their past hacks have been, well elegant; some would say professional even. Not that they are White Knights in shinning armor coming to save the world through the internet, but I can say for the most part they do not really seem that interested in money; which to me speaks volumes about their intent and what they try to accomplish.

 

[Henry Ford]

I read the nyt article and that live leak article. Besides for not charging that kid from the YouTube with any crime so far (could be because a lack of evidence of him actually raping her) the police seemed to have done a proper job. They interviewed everyone at those parties, they confiscated 15 phones. I guess they dropped charges against that one kid as well, but this does not sound like a police coverup at all. The trial was set for February, nothing was being swept under the rug

I obviously mostly agree. I will say that the "best" evidence of a coverup, or at least the decision that might be most easily publically criticized, is the decision to try the assailants as juveniles. Because juvenile records are closed, you could argue that the prosecutors made a knowing decision to try the case so as to elude public scrutiny.I think the LocalLinks page is pretty different from WikiLinks as I understand it. Whatever we feel about publishing private personal information and/or confidential government information on-line (and how we feel and what the law allows may be two different things), the LocalLinks page does a lot more than that. It casts a lot of innuendo. It asserts conspiracies and cover-ups without a lot of documentary evidence. It suggests that certain accessories must have participated in the rape. I'm not surprised that there have been defamation lawsuits (which I still think will be very hard to win because of the public concern in the case, but still). I don't think the site asks any inappropriate questions, but I question it to the extent that it seems to think it already knows the answers.

That was sort of my question last night in reading this...it read more like a "matter of fact" account of what happened than it did innuendo. How do they know the answers? They didn't just allege that the football coaches let the boys view porn, dabble in drugs and hang out in local bars - they stated it as a matter of fact. I've never stumbled on this site before and I'm not familiar with this sort of 'reporting' (not sure if that is even close to the right word) but I read the whole thing with my jaw on the floor. And let's say the town of Steubenville wants to fight back here. How do they do it? Who do they go after? Is the group "Knight Sec" identifiable in any way? Who gets sued here? This whole thing reads like a science fiction novel to me as I'm just not tuned in to what these "Anonymous" groups are all about, though I do feel like I'm ramping it up a bit.

Oh, and I did click on some other links (the linking on this site also puzzles me, it just threw me to different random blogs by strangers talking nothing about this case; never before has the internet seemed so foreign to me) and one of the sites I stumbled on alleges that "Anonymous" outed the wrong guy in the case of the 15-year old Canadian girl (Amanda Todd?) who committed suicide after a man posted topless pictures of her. I'd like to open up that conversation if anybody knows anything about it. From what I can gather, they set out to ruin this man's life for posting her picture, but they got the wrong dude? Holy mother forking crap...now THAT is scary!

This is the problem with Anonymous. I don't see this vaguely defined group of individuals as being much more than into hacking and some form of social anarchy against "the man". Sometimes they hit accurately, other times they don't. And I can easily see them getting full of themselves as self-appointed "crusaders" and taking more and more license in doing what they do. I read that article on Steubenville to be as filled with speculation and questionable assertions as facts. I'm sure they've got facts, but then they asser that legally bystanders are required to help someone being raped. Unless OH law is very different from everyone else, there isn't a legal duty absent a special relationship (e.g. parent-(minor) child; caregiver-patient; a person you've begun to save; etc.)

That's not to say that the wisecracking ######## on the video doesn't get what's coming to him, but that's poetic justice for a moral wrong rather than something he's earned by committing a crime.

Ohio law requires witnesses to report the rape to the authorities.

It was reported, wasn't it (by others, not video boy I gather)? I thought the major problem here was the authorities' (non-)response to the report.

My understanding of the Ohio law is that every bystander is required by law to report it. It wasn't reported until the girl and her family reported it three days later. A whoooole bunch of people knew about it and said nothing to the authorities but a whole lot on social media.

 

[DiStefano]

The allegation is that they drug their feet so they wouldn't keep the kids from playing football.

Rex Ryan should be on this in a flash.

 

[General Malaise]

I feel the need to address the bolded part. Anonymous is not just teenage kiddy scripters some of their past hacks have been, well elegant; some would say professional even. Not that they are White Knights in shinning armor coming to save the world through the internet, but I can say for the most part they do not really seem that interested in money; which to me speaks volumes about their intent and what they try to accomplish.

Can we talk about the case where these guys got the wrong person? That seems very dangerous to me.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I feel the need to address the bolded part. Anonymous is not just teenage kiddy scripters some of their past hacks have been, well elegant; some would say professional even. Not that they are White Knights in shinning armor coming to save the world through the internet, but I can say for the most part they do not really seem that interested in money; which to me speaks volumes about their intent and what they try to accomplish.

Can we talk about the case where these guys got the wrong person? That seems very dangerous to me.

Yes it is very dangerous.Anything else to add?

 

[Slapdash]

I read the nyt article and that live leak article. Besides for not charging that kid from the YouTube with any crime so far (could be because a lack of evidence of him actually raping her) the police seemed to have done a proper job. They interviewed everyone at those parties, they confiscated 15 phones. I guess they dropped charges against that one kid as well, but this does not sound like a police coverup at all. The trial was set for February, nothing was being swept under the rug

I obviously mostly agree. I will say that the "best" evidence of a coverup, or at least the decision that might be most easily publically criticized, is the decision to try the assailants as juveniles. Because juvenile records are closed, you could argue that the prosecutors made a knowing decision to try the case so as to elude public scrutiny.I think the LocalLinks page is pretty different from WikiLinks as I understand it. Whatever we feel about publishing private personal information and/or confidential government information on-line (and how we feel and what the law allows may be two different things), the LocalLinks page does a lot more than that. It casts a lot of innuendo. It asserts conspiracies and cover-ups without a lot of documentary evidence. It suggests that certain accessories must have participated in the rape. I'm not surprised that there have been defamation lawsuits (which I still think will be very hard to win because of the public concern in the case, but still). I don't think the site asks any inappropriate questions, but I question it to the extent that it seems to think it already knows the answers.

That was sort of my question last night in reading this...it read more like a "matter of fact" account of what happened than it did innuendo. How do they know the answers? They didn't just allege that the football coaches let the boys view porn, dabble in drugs and hang out in local bars - they stated it as a matter of fact. I've never stumbled on this site before and I'm not familiar with this sort of 'reporting' (not sure if that is even close to the right word) but I read the whole thing with my jaw on the floor. And let's say the town of Steubenville wants to fight back here. How do they do it? Who do they go after? Is the group "Knight Sec" identifiable in any way? Who gets sued here? This whole thing reads like a science fiction novel to me as I'm just not tuned in to what these "Anonymous" groups are all about, though I do feel like I'm ramping it up a bit.

Oh, and I did click on some other links (the linking on this site also puzzles me, it just threw me to different random blogs by strangers talking nothing about this case; never before has the internet seemed so foreign to me) and one of the sites I stumbled on alleges that "Anonymous" outed the wrong guy in the case of the 15-year old Canadian girl (Amanda Todd?) who committed suicide after a man posted topless pictures of her. I'd like to open up that conversation if anybody knows anything about it. From what I can gather, they set out to ruin this man's life for posting her picture, but they got the wrong dude? Holy mother forking crap...now THAT is scary!

I guess I'm missing how this stuff is all too different than the regular press when considering how they reacted to the Newtown tragedy.

meh...i'm not really interested in that hijack.

Carry on with your other hijacks then.

 

[General Malaise]

I feel the need to address the bolded part. Anonymous is not just teenage kiddy scripters some of their past hacks have been, well elegant; some would say professional even. Not that they are White Knights in shinning armor coming to save the world through the internet, but I can say for the most part they do not really seem that interested in money; which to me speaks volumes about their intent and what they try to accomplish.

Can we talk about the case where these guys got the wrong person? That seems very dangerous to me.

Yes it is very dangerous.Anything else to add?

No, I guess that's it. Scares me.

 

[General Malaise]

I read the nyt article and that live leak article. Besides for not charging that kid from the YouTube with any crime so far (could be because a lack of evidence of him actually raping her) the police seemed to have done a proper job. They interviewed everyone at those parties, they confiscated 15 phones. I guess they dropped charges against that one kid as well, but this does not sound like a police coverup at all. The trial was set for February, nothing was being swept under the rug

I obviously mostly agree. I will say that the "best" evidence of a coverup, or at least the decision that might be most easily publically criticized, is the decision to try the assailants as juveniles. Because juvenile records are closed, you could argue that the prosecutors made a knowing decision to try the case so as to elude public scrutiny.I think the LocalLinks page is pretty different from WikiLinks as I understand it. Whatever we feel about publishing private personal information and/or confidential government information on-line (and how we feel and what the law allows may be two different things), the LocalLinks page does a lot more than that. It casts a lot of innuendo. It asserts conspiracies and cover-ups without a lot of documentary evidence. It suggests that certain accessories must have participated in the rape. I'm not surprised that there have been defamation lawsuits (which I still think will be very hard to win because of the public concern in the case, but still). I don't think the site asks any inappropriate questions, but I question it to the extent that it seems to think it already knows the answers.

That was sort of my question last night in reading this...it read more like a "matter of fact" account of what happened than it did innuendo. How do they know the answers? They didn't just allege that the football coaches let the boys view porn, dabble in drugs and hang out in local bars - they stated it as a matter of fact. I've never stumbled on this site before and I'm not familiar with this sort of 'reporting' (not sure if that is even close to the right word) but I read the whole thing with my jaw on the floor. And let's say the town of Steubenville wants to fight back here. How do they do it? Who do they go after? Is the group "Knight Sec" identifiable in any way? Who gets sued here? This whole thing reads like a science fiction novel to me as I'm just not tuned in to what these "Anonymous" groups are all about, though I do feel like I'm ramping it up a bit.

Oh, and I did click on some other links (the linking on this site also puzzles me, it just threw me to different random blogs by strangers talking nothing about this case; never before has the internet seemed so foreign to me) and one of the sites I stumbled on alleges that "Anonymous" outed the wrong guy in the case of the 15-year old Canadian girl (Amanda Todd?) who committed suicide after a man posted topless pictures of her. I'd like to open up that conversation if anybody knows anything about it. From what I can gather, they set out to ruin this man's life for posting her picture, but they got the wrong dude? Holy mother forking crap...now THAT is scary!

I guess I'm missing how this stuff is all too different than the regular press when considering how they reacted to the Newtown tragedy.

meh...i'm not really interested in that hijack.

Carry on with your other hijacks then.

My hijacks are good. Your hijack is stupid.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

I read the nyt article and that live leak article. Besides for not charging that kid from the YouTube with any crime so far (could be because a lack of evidence of him actually raping her) the police seemed to have done a proper job. They interviewed everyone at those parties, they confiscated 15 phones. I guess they dropped charges against that one kid as well, but this does not sound like a police coverup at all. The trial was set for February, nothing was being swept under the rug

I obviously mostly agree. I will say that the "best" evidence of a coverup, or at least the decision that might be most easily publically criticized, is the decision to try the assailants as juveniles. Because juvenile records are closed, you could argue that the prosecutors made a knowing decision to try the case so as to elude public scrutiny.I think the LocalLinks page is pretty different from WikiLinks as I understand it. Whatever we feel about publishing private personal information and/or confidential government information on-line (and how we feel and what the law allows may be two different things), the LocalLinks page does a lot more than that. It casts a lot of innuendo. It asserts conspiracies and cover-ups without a lot of documentary evidence. It suggests that certain accessories must have participated in the rape. I'm not surprised that there have been defamation lawsuits (which I still think will be very hard to win because of the public concern in the case, but still). I don't think the site asks any inappropriate questions, but I question it to the extent that it seems to think it already knows the answers.

That was sort of my question last night in reading this...it read more like a "matter of fact" account of what happened than it did innuendo. How do they know the answers? They didn't just allege that the football coaches let the boys view porn, dabble in drugs and hang out in local bars - they stated it as a matter of fact. I've never stumbled on this site before and I'm not familiar with this sort of 'reporting' (not sure if that is even close to the right word) but I read the whole thing with my jaw on the floor. And let's say the town of Steubenville wants to fight back here. How do they do it? Who do they go after? Is the group "Knight Sec" identifiable in any way? Who gets sued here? This whole thing reads like a science fiction novel to me as I'm just not tuned in to what these "Anonymous" groups are all about, though I do feel like I'm ramping it up a bit.

Oh, and I did click on some other links (the linking on this site also puzzles me, it just threw me to different random blogs by strangers talking nothing about this case; never before has the internet seemed so foreign to me) and one of the sites I stumbled on alleges that "Anonymous" outed the wrong guy in the case of the 15-year old Canadian girl (Amanda Todd?) who committed suicide after a man posted topless pictures of her. I'd like to open up that conversation if anybody knows anything about it. From what I can gather, they set out to ruin this man's life for posting her picture, but they got the wrong dude? Holy mother forking crap...now THAT is scary!

This is the problem with Anonymous. I don't see this vaguely defined group of individuals as being much more than into hacking and some form of social anarchy against "the man". Sometimes they hit accurately, other times they don't. And I can easily see them getting full of themselves as self-appointed "crusaders" and taking more and more license in doing what they do. I read that article on Steubenville to be as filled with speculation and questionable assertions as facts. I'm sure they've got facts, but then they asser that legally bystanders are required to help someone being raped. Unless OH law is very different from everyone else, there isn't a legal duty absent a special relationship (e.g. parent-(minor) child; caregiver-patient; a person you've begun to save; etc.)

That's not to say that the wisecracking ######## on the video doesn't get what's coming to him, but that's poetic justice for a moral wrong rather than something he's earned by committing a crime.

I feel the need to address the bolded part. Anonymous is not just teenage kiddy scripters some of their past hacks have been, well elegant; some would say professional even. Not that they are White Knights in shinning armor coming to save the world through the internet, but I can say for the most part they do not really seem that interested in money; which to me speaks volumes about their intent and what they try to accomplish.

I agree, money's not the motivator (yet), but in case you haven't noticed in this very forum, people love to get attention, and they particularly love to get attention for an ideological cause. Worse, when people are ideological they can all too easily fall into the mindset that their actions, whatever they are and however harmful their mistakes might be, were well intentioned and therefore excusable. That, and the fact that they're, well, anonymous means that there's a lack of accountability. I don't see a good way to argue those points, and we all agree they wield a tremendous amount of persuasive and therefore coercive power. Absolute (meaning, unaccountably exercised) power corrupts, and I don't see how Anonymous is any more immune from that than anyone else is.

 

[Sweet J]

I read the nyt article and that live leak article. Besides for not charging that kid from the YouTube with any crime so far (could be because a lack of evidence of him actually raping her) the police seemed to have done a proper job. They interviewed everyone at those parties, they confiscated 15 phones. I guess they dropped charges against that one kid as well, but this does not sound like a police coverup at all. The trial was set for February, nothing was being swept under the rug

I obviously mostly agree. I will say that the "best" evidence of a coverup, or at least the decision that might be most easily publically criticized, is the decision to try the assailants as juveniles. Because juvenile records are closed, you could argue that the prosecutors made a knowing decision to try the case so as to elude public scrutiny.I think the LocalLinks page is pretty different from WikiLinks as I understand it. Whatever we feel about publishing private personal information and/or confidential government information on-line (and how we feel and what the law allows may be two different things), the LocalLinks page does a lot more than that. It casts a lot of innuendo. It asserts conspiracies and cover-ups without a lot of documentary evidence. It suggests that certain accessories must have participated in the rape. I'm not surprised that there have been defamation lawsuits (which I still think will be very hard to win because of the public concern in the case, but still). I don't think the site asks any inappropriate questions, but I question it to the extent that it seems to think it already knows the answers.

That was sort of my question last night in reading this...it read more like a "matter of fact" account of what happened than it did innuendo. How do they know the answers? They didn't just allege that the football coaches let the boys view porn, dabble in drugs and hang out in local bars - they stated it as a matter of fact. I've never stumbled on this site before and I'm not familiar with this sort of 'reporting' (not sure if that is even close to the right word) but I read the whole thing with my jaw on the floor. And let's say the town of Steubenville wants to fight back here. How do they do it? Who do they go after? Is the group "Knight Sec" identifiable in any way? Who gets sued here? This whole thing reads like a science fiction novel to me as I'm just not tuned in to what these "Anonymous" groups are all about, though I do feel like I'm ramping it up a bit.

Oh, and I did click on some other links (the linking on this site also puzzles me, it just threw me to different random blogs by strangers talking nothing about this case; never before has the internet seemed so foreign to me) and one of the sites I stumbled on alleges that "Anonymous" outed the wrong guy in the case of the 15-year old Canadian girl (Amanda Todd?) who committed suicide after a man posted topless pictures of her. I'd like to open up that conversation if anybody knows anything about it. From what I can gather, they set out to ruin this man's life for posting her picture, but they got the wrong dude? Holy mother forking crap...now THAT is scary!

This is the problem with Anonymous. I don't see this vaguely defined group of individuals as being much more than into hacking and some form of social anarchy against "the man". Sometimes they hit accurately, other times they don't. And I can easily see them getting full of themselves as self-appointed "crusaders" and taking more and more license in doing what they do. I read that article on Steubenville to be as filled with speculation and questionable assertions as facts. I'm sure they've got facts, but then they asser that legally bystanders are required to help someone being raped. Unless OH law is very different from everyone else, there isn't a legal duty absent a special relationship (e.g. parent-(minor) child; caregiver-patient; a person you've begun to save; etc.)

That's not to say that the wisecracking ######## on the video doesn't get what's coming to him, but that's poetic justice for a moral wrong rather than something he's earned by committing a crime.

One thing about this that has been really, really weird to me: Has anyone noticed in some of the video footage of the "demonstrations" that people are wearing those strange Anonomous "V is for Vendetta" masks? I see this and I'm like "where did this come from?" Is there really an Anonomous splinter cell in Nowhere Ohio?And another thing: There is video footage of what looks like to be a peacefull demonstration where the sheriff (or chief of police) is GIVING AN ON-CAMERA INTERVIEW to one of these weirdos in a mask. What the hell is that about? How can anyone give an interview with a straight face to someone wearing that mask?? This just gets weirderer and weirderer.

 

[General Malaise]

So if these guys screw up and out the wrong guy, there's just no recourse? That guy's life is ruined forever if he's not gunned down? Yikes.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

My understanding of the Ohio law is that every bystander is required by law to report it. It wasn't reported until the girl and her family reported it three days later. A whoooole bunch of people knew about it and said nothing to the authorities but a whole lot on social media.

Fair enough.