CAR, being the “devil’s advocate” here, I understand that this case will eventually be remanded back to the criminal court to proceed there. I understand the “technicality” the prosecutors prevailed on at the 4th and that the Court decided to publish its opinion. But that’s where it ends. The prosecutors can instruct the jury re: intent to commit a crime but still have an uphill climb to prove Rowe’s “intent” to harm the victim. This is so because the two poor schmucks who answered her ad will testify to help themselves, and, as a byproduct, help Rowe. The supposed assessor employee is a percipient witness IF they actually testify that Rowe asked them to contact the victim-homeowner (to harass them) and so they DID. Based upon that testimony alone, said employee could be disciplined at work. County Assessor employees NEVER contact individual parcel owners unless they are actively working with one on a stipulation in lieu of an assessment appeal hearing (to owners who would have filed an assessment appeal in a prior fiscal year). So this charge seems dubious, to me, and the prosecution will likely have to try to impeach the assessor-witness without any witnesses to do it with.
I haven’t read the briefs or seen the PE transcripts in this case, but if Rowe actually did 2, 3 and 4 “manually” (postcards, snail mail, money orders), it would be hard to prove to a jury it was she who did these things. The rerouting of someone’s mail is likely a “mail-tampering” crime but the printing or writing on the “forwarding” or “vacation hold” postcard would have to be proven to be hers. One can drop those in a any mailbox. If these deeds were done manually, there are no percipient witnesses to them.
Another problem with proving Rowe’s “intent to incite rape and/or sodomy” is that she actually didn’t know if her ad for freak sex adventures (or whatever) would be answered or who would answer it. She didn’t pay anyone to go to the victim’s door and had no control over what, if anything, any visitors to the victims home would do.
I’m with scaredy in that I think Rowe just intended a couple of “creepy dudes” to lurk around the victim’s property. It’s not as if she sought out a hitman based upon someone telling her that he “could get the job done” and she met him with an advance payment first and gave him a pic of the victim and her home/work address and a list of her habits.
Even if Rowe actually worked for the assessor’s office, she didn’t need to use their database to find her victim’s address (it’s public, anyway, for owner-occupants). She already knew where the victim lived because she herself tried to buy the house. Apparently, her victim didn’t have her FB page locked down, either, and Rowe lurked on it and copied picture(s) off of it. That’s not a crime.
[/quote]
1. She was in contact with the two men, had given them the victim’s picture and address, and had instructed them to break into the house and rape/sodomize her, specifying that they should continue if the victim fought back and said no. THAT IS RAPE. There is no question that she had every intention of having this woman harmed.
Perhaps those from within the criminal justice system don’t see a problem with this, but I can assure you that if this ever reaches a jury trial, this woman is toast (which is probably why you’re suggesting she will negotiate a plea bargain).
2. It doesn’t matter whether or not she thought anyone would answer the ad. The fact is that two people did answer the ad, and she gave them specific information and instructions to rape the woman; again, stating that the woman would act surprised and say no, yet they should continue, anyway.
3. She sought out men who were predisposed to kinky/S&M sex, which means they are capable of committing an act even though the woman is objecting (the two men might have thought she would be “acting,” but that is irrelevant, IMO, and they are not the ones on trial). She DID give them a picture and the address, time of day to make the attack, etc. The promise of “payment” to the two men is the promise of sex.
