Sore loser in the bidding war

[admin]

Not much going on here these days, but this is definitely pigg material:

Hoax ads called for rape in revenge

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Apr/08/rape-homebuyer-ads-prank-appeal-solicitation/?#article-copy

Consumed with bitterness over losing her Carmel Valley dream home to a couple with a higher bid, Kathy Rowe found an outlet for her anger: revenge.

Heh, she’s also a public employee.

[Coronita]

@52…..We’ll that’s one creative way to burn through whatever saving/retirement money you had…Attorney fees…

[CDMA ENG]

She needs to do real time…

No excuse for what she did.

CE

[NotCranky]

I’d like to know how a brain does the long plotted multi-stage revenge thing over something like this. How does that work? Is it more of a female thing?

I am not sure if being nuts is an excuse or not. …..did these lenient judges recommend forced therapy or anything like that? If much of the true story is there, something has to be done to , or for her, if possible.

[flyer]

Another alleged extreme and sick example of how people feel they are “entitled” to whatever they “want.”

I’ve also heard unbelievable stories about what lengths some parents will go to with regard to getting their kids into the “right” schools, or trying to secure their “dream jobs” for them, that border on criminal behavior.

In most cases, these tactics don’t work, and the “delusionals” finally have to face the fact that much of life is out of your control, and not everyone gets the gold ring.

Many kids today are suicidal because they can’t achieve the lives their parents promised them. Some feel if they can’t be a “Rock Star” or a “Silicon Valley Icon,” they don’t want to be anything.

Even with the “perfect” degree, personality, looks, you name it, we watched our kids compete against others with Ivy League backgrounds and fantastic experience for amazing career positions etc., and very few snagged their dream job. Sometimes it all boils down to a variable you never, ever imagined.

We leveled with our kids, and it paid off, but today, there seems to be a huge disconnect between their dreams and reality. Hope the folks have saved a small fortune for family therapy.

[Essbee]

I came to this forum tonight to see if you all had any commentary on this story. I am almost speechless. What a PSYCHOPATH! This rises far, far above the level of a prank.

I would like to see this woman’s mug shot. I also wish we could understand a bit more about why she was SO mad about how the real estate transaction turned out. Did she somehow feel she was wronged in the transaction beyond just having an inferior offer?

[CA renter]

This is incredibly frightening. The worst part is that the charges have been reduced to misdemeanors. IMO, this should be a felony charge for solicitation to commit forcible rape and sodomy. The intent of the two men does not matter at all. It is very clear that the crazy woman wanted the victim to be brutally raped; that it didn’t happen is just a lucky coincidence.

The argument for reducing the charges is like suggesting that hiring someone to kill a person is somehow less evil than killing someone yourself. The intent to commit a brutal rape was there, she lucked out because the “hit men” didn’t go through with it. She is still every bit as guilty as any rapist who attempts to brutally rape another person. And it was a premeditated act, too, as evidenced by her communications with the two men.

She deserves major jail time of *at least* ten years, IMO. And if she used her position at work to obtain any information about the victim or to post ads or communicate with the men, then she should lose her pension as well since committing a felony while working as a public employee can now result in losing one’s pension.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=CA renter]This is incredibly frightening. The worst part is that the charges have been reduced to misdemeanors. IMO, this should be a felony charge for solicitation to commit forcible rape and sodomy. The intent of the two men does not matter at all. It is very clear that the crazy woman wanted the victim to be brutally raped; that it didn’t happen is just a lucky coincidence.

The argument for reducing the charges is like suggesting that hiring someone to kill a person is somehow less evil than killing someone yourself. The intent to commit a brutal rape was there, she lucked out because the “hit men” didn’t go through with it. She is still every bit as guilty as any rapist who attempts to brutally rape another person. And it was a premeditated act, too, as evidenced by her communications with the two men.

She deserves major jail time of *at least* ten years, IMO. And if she used her position at work to obtain any information about the victim or to post ads or communicate with the men, then she should lose her pension as well since committing a felony while working as a public employee can now result in losing one’s pension.[/quote]

the judge at prelim reportedly dismissed the felony charges, but the appellate court reinstated them; now the issue of whetehr the state should be permitted to go forward on the felony charges is pending before the supremes i think according to the article.

Just because the judge at prelim dismisses the charges DOES NOT mean they are dismissed for good and ever…either side has a right to appeal on certain rulings at preliminary hearing.

im not sure what the right answer is here. i disagree, CAR, that this is like hiring a “hitman”. it’s not quite that. it’s a bit more of a grey area. she arguably wasn’t really truly intending to have the victim non consensually raped but she clearly wanted to make a third party think it would be ok to have sex with her in a rapelike way. that sure sounds liek the wanted the victim to at least stand a chance of being raped. That’s different in a sense than hiring a hitman, which is less speculative in terms of what the mission is.

but that guy who responds to the rape ad, probably should check before coming over and just “raping” her, since a reasonable personal ads list responder wouldn’t just go for it after all, they might have the wrong address, or wrong person….

on the other hand, maybe the defendant thinks the responder will just go for the rape first and ask questions later. I’m not sure what the answer is exactly, but it’s not a question of “soft” judges …even on the appellate court, there was a dissenting opinion. reasonable minds can differ, apparentyl. I havent read any of it, other than the article, this thread was first i’d heard of it.

What was she really thinking? what was her intent? I’m guessing if I could get in her mind, she didn’t really think there was a definite rape in the future, but there was at least a small offhand chance of a rape from an overeager ad responder; that might be enough for solicitation. that extra step of the amils “stop by anytime between 9-3 i like the element of surprise” is definitely a step in the right direction, as it seems like an invitation to just do it….but it still seems unreasonable for a fellow to bust down the door anythime during those hours to do a simulated rape.

i bet her primary vision was different though … of a stream of creepy dudes coming over to the house and saying, “is this the rape fantasy place? is this the rape fantasy place?” of course, that’s the best case scenario, which isn’t a great pitch to the jury…if the felony charges are reinstated, it will definitely be an intriguing trial.

definitely interesting, super creepy, and what i find really interesting is the defendant won MOTHER OF THE YEAR award a couple years back for slavish devotion to her daughter. makes you thinkmight be better to not trust extreme people who are at the very top of their field in mothering! almost makes the people shooting guns at your lot seem like neighbors of the year….

[livinincali]

I’m glad I don’t live in CV. If I did I could have this psychopath for a neighbor. Do you think property values around her house just went down?

[Coronita]

[quote=livinincali]I’m glad I don’t live in CV. If I did I could have this psychopath for a neighbor. Do you think property values around her house just went down?[/quote]

No, because technically she doesn’t live in CV.. She lost the home because the other person with more money outbid her, remember? 🙂

By making housing expensive, we weed out most of the rift-rafts… 🙂 (end sarcasm)

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredyclassic]

im not sure what the right answer is here. i disagree, CAR, that this is like hiring a “hitman”. it’s not quite that. it’s a bit more of a grey area. she arguably wasn’t really truly intending to have the victim non consensually raped but she clearly wanted to make a third party think it would be ok to have sex with her in a rapelike way. that sure sounds liek the wanted the victim to at least stand a chance of being raped. That’s different in a sense than hiring a hitman, which is less speculative in terms of what the mission is.

but that guy who responds to the rape ad, probably should check before coming over and just “raping” her, since a reasonable personal ads list responder wouldn’t just go for it after all, they might have the wrong address, or wrong person….

on the other hand, maybe the defendant thinks the responder will just go for the rape first and ask questions later. I’m not sure what the answer is exactly, but it’s not a question of “soft” judges …even on the appellate court, there was a dissenting opinion. reasonable minds can differ, apparentyl. I havent read any of it, other than the article, this thread was first i’d heard of it.

What was she really thinking? what was her intent? I’m guessing if I could get in her mind, she didn’t really think there was a definite rape in the future, but there was at least a small offhand chance of a rape from an overeager ad responder; that might be enough for solicitation. that extra step of the amils “stop by anytime between 9-3 i like the element of surprise” is definitely a step in the right direction, as it seems like an invitation to just do it….but it still seems unreasonable for a fellow to bust down the door anythime during those hours to do a simulated rape.

i bet her primary vision was different though … of a stream of creepy dudes coming over to the house and saying, “is this the rape fantasy place? is this the rape fantasy place?” of course, that’s the best case scenario, which isn’t a great pitch to the jury…if the felony charges are reinstated, it will definitely be an intriguing trial.

[/quote]

The bolded part is where we disagree. From the article, which is all I know of the case, it sounds very much like she wanted the woman to be brutally raped. She didn’t ask the guys to knock first and ask if they had the right house. She was instructing them to break in and rape the woman.

The way I see it, that is solicitation to commit rape and sodomy (based on the article). She deserves nothing less than serious jail time, IMO.

Yes, they reinstated the felony charges, but the fact that any judge would reduce these charges to misdemeanors is insane. This is clearly a case of solicitation to commit a brutal rape.

And then, there are the other “pranks” she had engaged in which are reason enough, IMO, for the victim family to file a civil lawsuit and (hopefully) win a very large case/settlement.

Definitely weird that she won “Mother of the Year,” too. You’re probably right about extreme personalities.

[Doofrat]

[quote=flu][quote=livinincali]I’m glad I don’t live in CV. If I did I could have this psychopath for a neighbor. Do you think property values around her house just went down?[/quote]

No, because technically she doesn’t live in CV.. She lost the home because the other person with more money outbid her, remember? 🙂

By making housing expensive, we weed out most of the rift-rafts… 🙂 (end sarcasm)[/quote]

Actually she does live in Carmel Valley and her Zestimate has gone up $17,000 in the last 30 days.

[FlyerInHi]

Why did she blame the new homebuyers?

If she was ready to pay $100k more than what they other couple paid, she should have communicated that to the Realtor so that she could get the house she wanted.

Her Realtor was more to blame.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=Blogstar]I’d like to know how a brain does the long plotted multi-stage revenge thing over something like this. How does that work? Is it more of a female thing?
[/quote]

the woman’s anger was directed at the wife who got the house. The husband wasn’t the target.

Seems like women take offence easily about little things such as not being invited, not being thanked, etc.. They seethe inside and the seething is made greater when other people are happy and have what they want.

That’s the reason divorces are drawn out. There’s a huge element of retribution and revenge to what otherwise is a purely legal resolution to a marriage that didn’t work out.

[Gunslinger]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Blogstar]I’d like to know how a brain does the long plotted multi-stage revenge thing over something like this. How does that work? Is it more of a female thing?
[/quote]

the woman’s anger was directed at the wife who got the house. The husband wasn’t the target.

Seems like women take offence easily about little things such as not being invited, not being thanked, etc.. They seethe inside and the seething is made greater when other people are happy and have what they want.

That’s the reason divorces are drawn out. There’s a huge element of retribution and revenge to what otherwise is a purely legal resolution to a marriage that didn’t work out.[/quote]

Serious question. Are you a gay man?

[Author]

Posts