Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Man sues Det. Sgt. Ingrid Jonas for allowing him to sit in jail on a sexual assault charge and not revealing that his accuser is a serial false accuser

UPDATED June 26, 8:30 pm: The jury found the Detective Sgt. not liable for her delay in telling prosecutors about the voicemail message accusing yet another man of another sexual assault. This, despite the fact that John Grenier was released from jail after a state prosecutor learned about the voicemail message.  http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120626/NEWS07/306260027/Jury-clears-state-trooper-over-handling-of-arrest?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
_________________

John Grenier, 46, has sued detective Sgt. Ingrid Jonas for money damages because, Mr. Grenier maintains, he was falsely imprisoned for 74 days on a sexual assault charge after Sgt. Jonas learned of evidence that would have cast considerable doubt on the accuser's credibility, but Sgt. Jonas sat on it. Trial is going on this week.

Mr. Grenier alleges that his accuser was a serial false accuser with a lengthy history of making false rape claims, and that there were at least a half dozen earlier police re­ports indicating the wom­an, now 43 years-old, had filed false sex crime claims.  (In addition, the alleged victim supposedly became infatuated with a police officer who investigated one of the false complaints in 1992, and she stalked him, including phone calls to his home and getting ar­rested multiple times on minor offenses so she might get to see the offi­cer.)  These facts should have been known to police, but they weren't revealed to Mr. Grenier.

In December 2007, the alleged victim told Sgt. Jonas that Mr. Grenier sexually assaulted her on Nov. 2, 2007, and that she repeatedly had told Mr. Grenier “no.” Mr. Grenier was arrested. However, when Sgt. Jonas interviewed the accuser again a few days later, the accuser said the assault happened in October; she also said she never said a word to Grenier during the incident because she was afraid.  Jonas did not report this change in stories to prosecutors.

A judge denied Mr. Grenier bail, partly because of two lewd-conduct convictions in the 1990s.

While Mr. Grenier sat in jail awaiting his trial, he learned in February 2008 about a voicemail from his accuser to Sgt. Jonas, made possibly as early as mid-December 2007, that indicated the accuser wanted to report yet another rape, by a different man. Sgt. Jonas retrieved the message in January 2008 after returning from vacation, but did not reveal it to the prosecution until mid-February, the lawsuit noted.

Jonas never inves­tigated the second rape claim and never spoke with the woman or her alleged attacker. She deemed the claim false without inves­tigating, Mr. Grenier claims. Yet Mr. Grenier remained locked up on the claim she made against him.

While Mr. Grenier's past sexual misconduct was used to justify how he was treated (e.g., he was denied bail because of it), his accuser's lengthy past history for making false sex claims was not deemed important enough even to reveal.

Mr. Grenier’s lawyers maintain that other prose­cutors had refused to file criminal charges in the past against other men the alleged victim wrongly accused because she was so lacking in credibility. Mr. Grenier claims that Sgt. Jonas failed in her responsibilities as a detective and should have questioned the validity of the alleged victim’s claims after she first changed the story.

At trial this week, Sgt. Jonas said she never told prosecutors about either the change in the alleged victim's story or the questionable voicemail because the officer said she “wasn’t asked” to do so. 

The trial continues, and we will provide updates.  After the jump are a series of news reports about the lawsuit:

Detective takes stand in lawsuit alleging she failed to disclose exculpatory evidence

BRATTLEBORO — A veteran Vermont State Police detective testified Monday she never told prosecutors about differences in the the stories from an alleged rape victim or a questionable voicemail from the woman because the officer said she “wasn’t asked” to do so.

Detective Sgt. Ingrid Jonas of Underhill is facing a civil-rights lawsuit filed by John Grenier, 46, of Winooski, who maintains he was falsely imprisoned for 74 days because she failed to investigate the case properly, including the woman’s lengthy history of making false rape claims.

Jonas, who spent most of Monday, the trial’s first day, on the witness stand, is the lone defendant.

The trial is focusing partly on the woman’s background and whether Jonas looked into it before she arrested Grenier in December 2007. The woman initially reported in November 2007 she was sexually assault and said it happened a month earlier.

When Grenier was confronted in December 2007, he denied the woman’s claim, but was jailed by Jonas on a charge of sexual abuse of a vulnerable adult. A judge denied him bail the following day, partly because of two lewd-conduct convictions in the 1990s.

Grenier learned in February 2008 about a voicemail from the woman to Jonas, possibly as early as mid-December 2007, that indicated that she wanted to report another rape — this time by a relative of Grenier. Jonas retrieved the message in January 2008 after returning from vacation, but did not reveal it to the prosecution until mid-February, the lawsuit noted. She also discounted that crime report.

Attorneys spent Monday morning in U.S. District Court in Brattleboro arguing whether the voicemail, in which the woman states another man also sexually assaulted her, would have prevented Grenier from being incarcerated.

“It’s not as if everyone saw this voicemail as proof Grenier didn’t do it,” Assistant Attorney General Keith Aten said. “The voicemail didn’t prove Detective Jonas violated his civil rights by not turning it over.”

Grenier’s attorney, Robert O’Neil of Burlington, said Jonas failed in her responsibilities as a detective and should have questioned the validity of the alleged victim’s claims after she changed the story.

“This case isn’t about John or what he’s done, (the alleged victim) or the witnesses ... it’s about whether the detective followed through with her responsibilities,” O’Neil said during his opening statement. “It’s about the system.”

Initially the alleged victim told Jonas the sexual assault happened Nov. 2, 2007, and that she repeatedly had told Grenier “no.” However, when Jonas interviewed her again a few days later, the woman said the assault happened in October, and she never said a word to Grenier during the incident because she was afraid.

A second charge of sexual assault was added about two weeks after the initial arrest, and bail was denied a second time.

Jonas testified she didn’t show the December message to the state prosecutor until Feb. 13, 2008, after Grenier’s attorneys learned about it.

After an emergency court hearing two days later, a Franklin County judge released Grenier on conditions — two and half months after his initial arrest.

A month later the state dropped both charges against Grenier.

Grenier is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, and legal fees.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120625/NEWS02/306250026/Detective-takes-stand-lawsuit-alleging-she-failed-disclose-exculpatory-evidence?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE


Winooski man charges false imprisonment

A Winooski man says he was improper­ly imprisoned for 74 days because a veter­an Vermont State Police detective with­held critical information from prosecu­tors that eventually led to the dismissal of a sexual assault charge.

A federal jury will be asked this week whether claims by John Grenier, 46, are true and whether he is entitled to finan­cial compensation due to the actions of State Police Detective Sgt. Ingrid Jonas of Underhill.

Part of the civil lawsuit centers on the reliability of the alleged victim, who has a long history of filing false sex crime com­plaints with police, according to court pa­pers. The alleged rape in 2007 was report­ed a month late and there was no physical evidence in the case to tie Grenier or any­body to the claim.

Grenier’s lawyers maintain that prose­cutors in Chittenden County and the At­torney General’s office had refused to file criminal charges in the past against other men because the alleged victim lacked credibility when filing similar com­plaints. The lawyers maintain that infor­mation was available to Jonas, but she opt­ed not to use it.

Those earlier false claims were handled by Burlington Police and the Chittenden Unit for Spe­cial Investigations, which specializes in sex crime cases.

Part of those earlier records also show the woman became infatuated with a Burlington Police officer, who investigated one of the false complaints in 1992 and began to stalk him, including phone calls to his home and getting ar­rested multiple times on minor offenses so she might get to see the offi­cer.

The plaintiff maintains there were at least a half dozen earlier police re­ports indicating the wom­an, now 43 years-old, had filed false sex crime claims, court papers show. After Grenier was jailed, Jonas got a voice mail message from the woman claiming she also had been raped by a rela­tive of Grenier. Jonas nev­er retrieved the message until early January be­cause she was on vacation and finally told the state prosecutor about it Feb.13, 2008, court records show.

After an emergency court hearing on Feb. 15, 2008, a Franklin County judge released Grenier on conditions — 2½ months after being jailed. The state dismissed the felony charge about a month lat­er.
Jonas told her boss, Ma­jor Edward Ledo, about the woman’s phone call the day the judge freed Gre­nier from prison, records show.

The trial

Jonas acted alone to vio­late Grenier’s constitu­tional rights, according to the civil lawsuit filed by Burlington lawyer Robert O’Neil of Gravel and Shea, who represents Grenier.

O’Neil declined com­ment on the upcoming trial when reached by the Bur­lington Free Press on Fri­day afternoon.

Jonas also declined comment. She referred questions to her lawyer, Assistant Attorney Gener­al Keith Aten, who said he believes Jonas acted prop­erly.

The trial in U.S. District Court in Brattleboro could last for up to four days.

It is expected to include testimony from Jonas, Grenier and the woman’s adult protection case worker, who was aware of the various fabricated sto­ries. Also a police expert from Florida is expected to talk about the modern standards for police dis­closure in criminal investi­gations.

Grenier, who is seeking compensatory and puni­tive damages, and legal fees, has had run-ins with the law, including two lewd and lascivious conduct convictions in the 1990s.

Grenier is claiming “lost wages, emotional dis­tress, mental anguish, stig­matization of his reputa­tion, damage to personal relationships, loss of free­dom, pain, suffering, dep­rivation of his constitu­tional rights, loss of priva­cy” and that he also in­curred lawyer’s fees.

The Arrest

The federal court case this week is based on a late reported sexual assault complaint by the woman. The woman sought treated at the Richford Health Center on Nov. 26, 2007 and told clinic personnel she was sexually assaulted sometime in October. Jo­nas, who was assigned to the Northwest Unit for Special Investigations, was summoned and began conducting interviews.

On Dec. 3, 2007 she con­fronted Grenier, who de­nied the sexual allega­tions, but Jonas arrested him. She jailed Grenier pending arraignment the following day in St. Al­bans. In court Grenier de­nied a charge of sexual abuse of a vulnerable adult and a judge ordered him held without bail.

The state later amend­ed the charge to sexual as­sault, but the judge denied Grenier bail a second time on Dec. 21, 2007.

Grenier was freed on Feb.15, 2008 after an emer­gency court hearing.

Grenier had learned the woman had called Jonas, possibly on Dec. 13, 2007, and left a voice mail indi­cating the then-Richford woman also was claiming that she had been sexually assaulted by a neighbor, records show.

Also Jonas never inves­tigated the second rape claim, never spoke with the woman or her alleged attacker, but deemed the claim false without inves­tigating, court paper show. According to court pa­pers there is some ques­tion when Jonas became aware of the December 2007 message. It appears she may not have heard it until returning from vaca­tion in early January 2008, court papers indicate.

The lawsuit centers on Jonas not telling the prose­cutor until mid-February about the information that might exonerate Grenier.

Lt. David Notte, the head of state police train­ing, testified during a de­position that he was al­ways trained to hand over any evidence favorable to the accused, even in situa­tions where there may be in a gray area as to wheth­er evidence is favorable, court papers show.


Sex offender files suit against police detective


BARRE – A repeat sex offender from Winooski who was jailed on a new sex-crime charge in late 2007, and later had the charge dropped, is suing the state police detective who investigated that case.

John Grenier, 44, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Burlington last week, accusing Vermont State Police Detective Sergeant Ingrid Jonas of violating his due process rights for allegedly withholding key evidence that freed him from prison once it came to light.

Grenier, who has two convictions of lewd and lascivious conduct on his record, was charged in December 2007 with sexual abuse of a vulnerable adult after a woman accused him of assaulting her, court records state.

At his arraignment on that charge, Grenier was held without bail, and despite contesting that decision at a separate hearing, he remained jailed for 74 days, according to the lawsuit.

Grenier was freed and the charges against him were dropped after a message that the accuser left for Jonas on her voicemail came to light, and he argues the voicemail is what directly led to his release from prison. And Grenier contends that Jonas "intentionally, knowingly and with deliberate indifference" withheld the voicemail from prosecutors for more than a month in order to keep him behind bars.

The voicemail was left on or around Dec. 13, 2007, the lawsuit states, nine days after Grenier was originally held.

In the voicemail, Grenier's accuser made an additional accusation of sexual assault against another man, Travis Denton, the day after Grenier was believed to have assaulted her, the lawsuit states.

Jonas was apparently on vacation until early January 2008, but Grenier contends she would have received the voicemail by early January at the latest.

The lawsuit states that Jonas did not investigate the accusation against Denton "as it was immediately deemed to be false." Jonas never interviewed the accuser or Denton, the lawsuit states.

Soon after the voicemail was disclosed to the prosecutor, the prosecutor agreed to release Grenier on conditions, court records state.

Grenier was jailed from Dec. 3, 2007 until Feb. 15, 2008, and the charges against him were dropped on March 19, 2008, records show.

"Acting in her individual capacity, (Jonas) knowingly and intentionally withheld the voicemail left by Complainant from the prosecutor and from (Grenier's) attorney for more than a month, violating Plaintiff's constitutional rights," the lawsuit states.

Grenier argues there was other evidence that should have led authorities to question the accuser's story. According to the lawsuit, Jonas reviewed records from the Burlington Police Department and the Chittenden Unit for Special Investigations. Both files included a number of sexual assault complaints made by the woman who accused Grenier of abusing her, according to court papers.

The two agencies determined that many of the allegations were unsubstantiated, and their files indicate the cases involving Grenier's accuser were either dismissed or not prosecuted, according to Grenier's complaint.

Jonas "knew or should have known based on her investigation of the incident that Complainant was known to have made false sexual assault reports in the past," the lawsuit states.

Grenier says that as a direct result of Jonas' actions, he was denied bail, which led to lost wages, emotional distress, mental anguish, stigmatization of his reputation, damage to personal relationships, attorney's fees and the denial of his constitutional rights.

Grenier does not seek a specific monetary amount in the complaint, but asks for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount deemed appropriate by the "trier of fact."

Jonas, an experienced sex-crimes investigator, declined to comment for this story.

She is currently the Special Investigation Unit Coordinator for the state police, according to information she provided in a recent affidavit in an unrelated case. She has been a certified law enforcement officer in Vermont since December 1998, she stated, and was a detective assigned to the Northwest Unit for Special Investigations in St. Albans for nearly four years, starting in 2001 where she investigated sexual crimes.

She was then assigned to the Chittenden Unit for Special Investigations in 2005 and continued to investigate sex crimes there, she wrote. In November 2007, she was promoted to the rank of sergeant and supervised the detectives' unit for the Northwest Unit for Special Investigations until the end of March 2008.

The Vermont Attorney General's Office is representing Jonas, and Assistant Attorney General Keith Aten is assigned to the case.

Aten said he is "in the process of reviewing" the case, but added that it's too early to comment on how he plans to respond to the accusations.

"We haven't had a chance to really digest the allegations and ponder what the response would be," said Aten.

Aten said he plans to accept the service of the complaint. Then he will either answer the complaint on behalf of his client, which would mean admitting or denying the allegations, or file a motion challenging the basis of the lawsuit.

The complaint filed on behalf of Grenier makes it clear that he is not suing the Vermont State Police, but is suing Jonas in her individual capacity.

That is because in order to sue a state employee in federal court, a plaintiff must separate the individual from the agency, said Aten.

The lawsuit also makes it clear that Grenier believes Jonas withheld the evidence knowingly and intentionally, but Grenier's attorney Robert O'Neil, of the law firm Gravel and Shea, did not want to back those assertions up this early in the legal battle.

"The complaint speaks for itself, and if the explanation that the state officer has for this is that it was just an inadvertence on her part, we'll find that out in the civil suit," said O'Neil, who said he represented Grenier when he faced criminal charges.

O'Neil added that he knows a lot of Vermont State Police officers and doesn't believe most of them would simply forget about a key piece of evidence.

"They're not forgetful," he said.

Grenier was convicted of lewd and lascivious conduct in 1990 and 1999. He received a 1-to-5 year sentence for the 1999 charge and 2-to-5 year sentence on the 1990 charge, according to court records. Grenier was also convicted of failing to comply with the sex offender registry in 2007. He is not a high-risk sex offender, according to the state's sex offender registry.

20 comments:

  1. ”Man sues Det. Sgt. Ingrid Jonas for allowing him to sit in jail on a sexual assault charge and not revealing that his accuser is a serial false accuser”

    Now this, this IS the kind of “targeted” action in response to a specifics instance of police misconduct that can have a real and positive effect. By citing exactly what a given individual has done, and by demonstrating how they are uniquely culpable for attendant harms, it differentiates them from those around them who are not co-responsible for that bad behavior.

    And, to be frank, this is the best way to achieve positive reforms within the ranks of law enforcement – demonstrating how NOT to conduct themselves.

    Are there some serious issues with the way law enforcement conducts themselves and the way in which they responds to and handle allegations of rape, sexual assault, and claims of intimate partner violence? You bet there are. And, yes, they are still very pervasive.

    Yet, when a given situation is examined*, what is most often found is that the mishandling comes down to the decisions and actions of a relative few, perhaps even lone individuals (as in the case above) within law enforcement. Thus, rather than broadly targeting an entire department, or even all of law enforcement, directing punitive actions against only those who actually had a hand in the malfeasance not only sends the message that those who would willfully engage in such serious misconduct will not be able to hide behind the “thin blue line” of their colleagues, benefiting from having the blame spread around so that no one is true punished; it will also demonstrate to others who would NOT engage in those misdeeds that their honor will be upheld.

    It really not unlike a local situation in my state in which a few members of the Denver PD, who were really nothing more than bullies who’d been given badges and State authority, engaged in acts of brutality against individuals who posed no real threat and had only committed minor infractions. Rather than enact broad punitive measures against the entire police force, lecturing them they were part of the problem (sort of like how all men are told they are part of the rape problem); the choice was made to only selectively punish those who’d actually engaged in acts of police brutality. Those few officers who’d abused their positions of public authority were fired (and some charged with crimes). As a result, not only were the actual problem individuals eliminated, but the public trust in the police was improved.

    The broader point is, of course, that rogue police officers, detectives, and/or prosecutors must not be tolerated; and the very best way to achieve that goal is to go after only those who are identified as active participants in misconduct.

    (* Just as we’d demand that every allegation of rape be investigated thoroughly and judges on it’s true merit, rather than a rush to judgment based largely on long-standing anti-male biases; so too should we as outside observers take the time to fully consider what can actually be known from the news accounts of those cases in which a rape claim is discovered to have been false. Those who would rush to judgment based on their long-standing anti-police biases are simply doing the same thing that they so detest in the police.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. slwerner, law enforcement generally does a terrific job weeding out wrongful claims. As with any institution run by mortals, it can do better. The stakes are so high, we need to insist that it do better.

    Thanks for all your contributions to this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Without prejudging the woman police officer's conduct I think it's fair to say that the serial false accuser is a danger to male society and should either be imprisoned or committed, depending upon the outcome of psychiatric tests.

    There should be a register of convicted false accusers, with advertisements placed in local papers and on television when a dangerous woman moves into an area.

    Men must be protected from such creatures.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The detective prevailed in this case so she is apparently a member of the community of the wrongly accused. As to the comment regarding the "serial false accuser", she should indeed be evaluated. That said, the accused DID have sexual relations with the woman in question.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My false rape accuser was a serial false rape accuser, as i was the second guy that year to be falsely accused of rape by her.
    The law enforcement officers that handled (or shall i say mishandled) my case, simply re-defined what the meaning of is, is, in order to be able to pervert reality and claim it was not a false rape accusation. I have realized that many of these protocol perversions and semantics game that law enforcement are now engaged in, are used for them to manufacture the "2% false rape statistic" that American Gender-feminists have told them to manufacture for them.
    The question is, is this 2% manufactured statistic amount to a state and federally funded prejudice against the innocent???

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jonas's other cases should be investigated to see if she has a history of withholding exculpatory evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  7. S in Boston - ”I have realized that many of these protocol perversions and semantics game that law enforcement are now engaged in, are used for them to manufacture the "2% false rape statistic" that American Gender-feminists have told them to manufacture for them.
    The question is, is this 2% manufactured statistic amount to a state and federally funded prejudice against the innocent???”


    Seriously Scot, Susan Brownmiller made up the 2% false rape reporting BS - there was no statistical information provided by any law enforcement agency that went into that wholly imaginary number. Your constant suggestion that it is a real number derived from law enforcement data lend undue credibility to that hard-to-kill canard. Not everyone who reads this site is suspicious of police, so if they are being told that the 2% rate was derived from LE data, then they likely to believe that it is a real number. That is why it is necessary to refute your ridiculous assertion every time you bring it up.

    I realize that you think you are providing some service by making this stuff up, but, really, you’re not helping.

    The FRA issue doesn’t need it’s own “Urban Myths”. The facts alone are already convincing those who take the time to consider the message of this site. And, what’s more, the real law enforcement data, even when filtered by the SGI, still points to a much higher rate of (absolutely known) false reporting in the SGI’s own published studies.

    Seriously, help us kill the 2%-canard by never falsely associating with any real data.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous - ”The detective prevailed in this case so she is apparently a member of the community of the wrongly accused.”


    WTF are you talking about!?!?

    The Community of The Falsely Accused is for those innocent men (and women) who have been accused of CRIMES they DID NOT commit.

    Ms Jonas is accused of police misconduct in having withheld exculpatory evidence. She has not “prevailed”. Where do you get that stuff from? An (objectively) innocent man spend many needless days locked up because she refused to come clean with the information given to her by the (objectively) false accuser.

    You really don’t having any understanding of this site, do you? Just another man-hating gender-feminist troll looking to discredit a worthy effort, I suppose.

    ”That said, the accused DID have sexual relations with the woman in question.”

    And, you know this how? The news article does not suggest that any actual sex ever occurred – between the accuser and the accused, nor the other man she subsequently added an accusation against.

    Are you also suggesting that she had sex with that other man she accused as well?

    ReplyDelete
  9. If Anon. knows the outcome of the civil suit, I'd be much obliged if she'd reveal it. Whether there was liability doesn't change the facts that the newspaper says the Sgt. admitted to -- the Sgt. didn't alert the accused man to information that might have been helpful to him. This would be an important story even if the man had never sued.

    ReplyDelete
  10. P.S. If Anon at 1:28 is the Sgt., then you are welcome to tell your story here.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Certainly an interesting case.
    I wonder how it would have gone down with the defense had not uncovered the exonerating evidence.
    I also wonder how they got a hold of it.
    I see the local AG closed ranks and defended the detective.
    Hence his only real
    chance was to take it to federal court,which he did, must have been costly.
    Would be interesting to see the outcome.

    In my case of false DV charge,the female clerks used a typewriter to check all the boxes on the DV complaint form,against State law,and the female Court clerks were obstructive to my questions regarding defense.
    It was a female officer that took my request for a summons sot I could challenge the allegation,the summons was not served until after the court date,causing me to have to emergency hire a lawyer.Costly.
    So that is why it is my perception "team woman" transcends all demographics.
    Also the locals always close ranks no matter what,it's an issue of solidarity.
    While the excuse of 'not being asked' to provide to the defense the exonerating evidence seems flimsy on the face of it, it is true detectives are under no legal obligation to provide anything to the defense until right before the trial.
    Perhaps the female officer was waiting to see if it could be hidden and see this "scumbag" off to jail.
    Any past convictions are 'cause' enough to justify a railroading.
    I should start signing my posts due to the similarity of those of another person.
    Signed FB
    (not scott)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Published May 15, 2009 in the Times Argus
    Sex offender files suit against police detective

    By THATCHER MOATS Times Argus Staff

    BARRE – A repeat sex offender from Winooski who was jailed on a new sex-crime charge in late 2007, and later had the charge dropped, is suing the state police detective who investigated that case.

    John Grenier, 44, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Burlington last week, accusing Vermont State Police Detective Sergeant Ingrid Jonas of violating his due process rights for allegedly withholding key evidence that freed him from prison once it came to light.

    Grenier, who has two convictions of lewd and lascivious conduct on his record, was charged in December 2007 with sexual abuse of a vulnerable adult after a woman accused him of assaulting her, court records state.

    At his arraignment on that charge, Grenier was held without bail, and despite contesting that decision at a separate hearing, he remained jailed for 74 days, according to the lawsuit.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wow, one of the only false rape cases that main stream media will cover is " A Sex Offender Gets Railroaded into prison on a false rape charge". Well what about the hundreds of non sex offenders that get railroaded to jail on false rape accusations???
    (not scot)

    ReplyDelete
  15. This was purely about harassing a person for being on the sex offender registry.

    His second "new sex crime" was a failure to register, which apparently was dropped.

    No jury was going to side with the guy no matter what was right or wrong.

    Say what you will, innocent or undeserving people are on the registries, and THIS is the treatment they get.

    It's UnConstitutional, and when you support injustice for one, eventually you will be enjoying you own injustice.

    ReplyDelete
  16. not scot - the point is...when you turn a blind eye to trampling the rights of the lowly, in this case a man on the SO registry, it TRICKLES UP.

    The rights of those not on SO registries are a by product of allowing the rights of ANYbody to be shredded.

    Actually take a look at how this article was framed - huh huh huh folks! This (horrible, scary) sex offender (has the NERVE!) filed a wrongful suit against a (saintly) female state patrol officer even though he already had a SECOND SEX CRIME(failure to register, which could mean another harassment arrest since it was also dropped, and they don't drop charges like that readily).

    The rights of those you distain eventually bleed up to being the rights that are distained for yourself....then there is on one left to speak up, is there?

    ReplyDelete
  17. The second sex crime was not failure to register.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous - ”The second sex crime was not failure to register.”

    While technically correct, I believe this is entirely irrelavent.

    From one of the news accounts:
    ”Grenier, who is seeking compensatory and puni¬tive damages, and legal fees, has had run-ins with the law, including two lewd and lascivious conduct convictions in the 1990s.”

    His second crime, like his first was “lewd and lascivious conduct”. His two convictions were cited as a reason to deny him bond (as well as a presumed reason for the detective to have been so over-zealous).

    But, lewd and lascivious conduct is a far cry from actual sexual assault. It includes a wide variety of acts from indecent public exposure, being caught having sex in public, to soliciting a prostitute. It used to even apply to unmarried couples living together (and having sexual relationships).

    While it would be possible to argue that lewd and lascivious conduct could also include more serious offense, the fact is that for those more serious offenses which could be covered, there are already alternate and more serious charges which would be preferentially applied.

    Thus, that he was convicted of lewd and lascivious conduct might mean little more than that he was twice caught urinating in public. If he had actually committed a sexual offense against another, the news account would have certainly reflected the more serious nature and charges for such crimes. That, in a article which seems to be intended to play up his supposed history as a criminal sex-fiend, can only state his convictions for lewd and lascivious conduct, is, to me, a dead give-away that what ever he had done previously was fair mild in comparison to what the serial false-accuser claimed he had done top her.

    It was a “stretch”, and a very bid one at that, to have used it as an excuse to deny him bail (sort of like using a persons prior conviction for a shoplifting offense as a reason to deny them bail for being charged with an alleged aggravated robbery – where no evidence beyond a complaining witnesses word is introduced).

    ReplyDelete
  19. "charged with an alleged aggravated robbery – where no evidence beyond a complaining witnesses word is introduced"

    That's the thing, was there ever any evidence of sexual assault other than the word of his incredibly incredible accuser? Someone is quite unlikely to be charged with robbery unless there is missing property in question, or some other evidence that a robbery occurred.

    "That said, the accused DID have sexual relations with the woman in question."

    Even if that were true, people have sex with each other all the time. Sex is not evidence of rape.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Nice, nothing like being sued in Fedderal court for doing your job. The lying bimbo is the one responsible! The officer did NOTHING wrong and the info had nothing to do with the crazy womans complaint.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.