[quote=bearishgurl]Lurking on and off here and saw joec’s post of today … I just HAD to respond …
omg, having had a l-o-o-ong local “criminal justice background” and thus “knowing all the players,” I am so struck by this rather unusually graphic opinion that joec posted here (btw, 3 justices constitute a “quorum” on a CA Appellate District panel). I must admit that I haven’t seen an opinion quite like this in the past (thanks for your [very astute] contribution here, joec)!
The REALITY is, folks, Defendant Rowe has an EXCELLENT and VERY CREDIBLE attorney in Chuck Sevilla. I carefully read the entire opinion as well as the `dissenting opinion’ and fully understand why Justice McDonald called it the way he did. I’m not trying to side with defendant here but prosecutors have a VERY REAL problem in front of a potential jury in that the two responders to Rowe’s ad testified at PE that, despite being goaded by Rowe, neither of them were in any position to JUMP the victim if she was surprised by them in any way, and, in fact, one of the “innocent victims” (as the court referred to them) was daunted by the REAL victim’s husband answering the door (he testified that “the man answering the door [actually] lived there”). They were simply answering an ad for a “casual encounter” (not uncommon, folks). It is also NOT uncommon for online “dating” participants (men, especially) to send pics of themselves nude to someone they met online but don’t know, even on “traditional” online dating sites.
I predict this case will “very quietly settle” in the confines of the prosecutor’s darkest back broom closet with a lessor plea by Rowe. If that plea happens to be to a felony (she is NOT “sworn staff,” btw), then she will not lose her civil-service job over it as the alleged crime did NOT happen in her particular “line of duty.” Equally, it could settle with a misdemeanor plea which wouldn’t necessarily result in “disciplinary action” with her employer. Either way, her retirement shouldn’t be affected, depending on if her employing agency was a law-enforcement agency … or not.
That’s the way the “system” works around here.
What really troubles me here is that Rowe testified in PE that she wanted the particular property her “victim” ended up getting (and took “harmless” revenge because her victim got it) because it was a “one-story home” which was suitable for her family in various ways.
SHE COULD HAVE HAD that same “one-story home” ANYWHERE in SD County! It didn’t have to be Carmel Valley (with an avg 3500 to 4500 sf lot replete with audible sounds from the next-door neighbor’s toilet). She COULDN’T HAVE been seeking a particular public school for her profoundly handicapped daughter (her ‘ONLY child’) because her daughter was undoubtedly a “special education student.” It’s not like Rowe was seeking a particular “college prep” course for her daughter or an “edge” for college admission. I’m no psychiatrist, but to me, this smacks of a delusional mindset with narcissistic tendencies, namely borderline personality disorder.
I keep asking myself WHY or HOW something like this could happen in the REAL world! It’s unreal to me… maybe I’m missing something important here, lol…
any “expert comments,” feel free to come forth …. scaredy …??[/quote]
Hi BG, glad to see you’re still lurking around. 🙂
On your first point about the two men, it does NOT matter what their intentions were, they did nothing wrong, legally-speaking…at least as far as I can tell. The ONLY person whose intent is in question is defendant Rowe. If she had reason to believe that these men were willing to follow her directions, then she is guilty of solicitation to commit forcible rape/sodomy. Clearly, with the way she was talking to them, she was doing everything in her power to cause these men to rape the victim. From what I can tell, there is no equivocation about this. She told the men to break into the house and “surprise” the woman…and rape her, brutally, even if she says no. THAT IS RAPE!!! She is no less guilty than a man who performs the same act himself, IMO.
As for her losing her job (and pension), if she gleaned information about the victim while at work, possibly using her employer’s computer system, or accessing public records during working hours, then she should be guilty of committing a felony in the line of duty. I’m not familiar with SD County and the extent to which it’s affected by PEPRA, but think that Rowe should be affected by the pension forfeiture provisions as it should qualify as “a felony for conduct arising in the performance of the employee’s official duties…”
If she used any public resources while at work that helped her facilitate these crimes, she should lose her job, as well. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
