There’s a lot of sexy graphic detail as to what she wants “done” to her.[/quote]
From Joe’s link [copy didn’t format correctly, so I formatted it in a way that is easier to read]:
(1)listing the
victim’s
home for sale;
(2)putting a hold on the victim’s and
the victim’s husband’s mail;
(3)having over a $1,000 worth of
unsolicited magazines, books, and junk
mail sent to the victim’s home;
(4)sending Valentine’s Day cards
from the victim’s husband to the
wives of the victim’s neighbors;
(5)having a county assessor’s office
employee contact the victim and
the victim’s husband about reassessing their
home;
(6)having members of religious groups
visit the victim’s home;
(7)posting an online announcement for a high school New Year’s Eve party at the victim’s home;
and
(8)posting an online announcement for a free
Mexican fireworks giveaway at the victim’s home
on Independence Day.5
—————–
IMHO, this should qualify for a civil suit all by itself, irrespective of the rape charges. This woman need to go down.[/quote]
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.
At the very least, Rowe has got to be terribly embarrassed at work and in the community. The provisions in your new retirement plan link will not affect her. 99% says she is “Tier A.” Her “analyst” position is was likely considered a “promotional position” when she took it, meaning the agency she worked for only considered internal applications for the position. Rowe was qualified to retire in 2012 and is able to retire today. She may have already done so to avoid the embarrassment and backlash from her superiors, as, even though she has not been convicted of a crime, they could have tried to make her life miserable so she would go away on her own.
This sordid affair is going to descend into a black hole of obscurity and the victims may decide to file a small claim to get a judgment against Rowe for their new security system. If they decide to press a limited civil or civil action against Rowe, it won’t be heard until after she is sentenced. In any case, Sevilla will have a big chunk of her money (and possibly a lien on her house) and her spouse may leave her for all of this mess if he hasn’t already.
