This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I'm still trying to wade through the sources, but does anyone have a clarification on what the initial sentence possibility was and what the plea deal was? Right now I'm looking at this but I can't determine what "The boys were to be sentenced on charges of first-degree sexual abuse, a felony, and misdemeanor voyeurism on Tuesday, but that has been delayed" refers to. Is that what they agreed to in the plea deal, or is that what it would have been had they not plead guilty? Ryan Vesey 23:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
This article appears to be conflating 2 different crimes. The Dietrich case has been resolved I think. . .The trial for the Steubenville rape (I think the rape happened the night of Aug 11, 2012) is not set until Feb. according to this CNN article [1]. R. Baley ( talk) 09:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
==Night of the rape== On August 11, 2012 Savannah Dietrich, 16, was drugged so that she could not later recall most events from the night. [1] She couldn't remember anything after midnight. [1] It was first clear that Dietrich was drunk around 10:00 or 10:30. [1] Witnesses reported that baseball players from Steubenville High School dared bystanders to urinate on Dietrich. [1] Dietrich left the party with football players from the high school after midnight. [1] Some witnesses reported that Dietrich needed assistance walking while another reported that she was asleep and carried out by Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond. [1] The football players briefly took Dietrich to a second party before bringing her to a third. [1] Dietrich awoke on the way to the third party long enough to vomit in the street. [1] One witness reported that Dietrich was left alone and topless for several minutes while another reported that Mays and Richmond held her hair while she vomited. [1] While heading to a third party, a witness for the prosecution declared that he recorded Mays assault Dietrich in the back of his Volkswagen Jetta. [1] Mays flashed Dietrich's breasts and used his fingers to penetrate her. [1] At the third party, Dietrich could not walk on her own, vomited, and toppled onto her side. [1] When Mays attempted to coax her into performing oral sex on him, she was unresponsive. [1] While Dietrich lied on the floor naked, witnesses stated that Mays exposed himself to her and that Richmond used his fingers to penetrate her. [1] Another athlete took photographs of the event. [1] He claimed that he did it so he could let Dietrich know what happened to her, but he deleted the images after showing them to several people. [1] Dietrich ended the night on a couch in the basement of the home with Mays initially alongside her. [1] She claimed that she woke the next day with no knowledge of the events that transpired the night before. [1] [1]
I concur, I think the source of the issue was this source I used (that triggered my creation of the article) that talks about both cases, and does a poor job (imo) of transitioning between the two cases in its story. I think both cases are probably notable and as they have been related to eachother in some sources, could have a brief mention/link to each other. http://jezebel.com/5969076/we-wouldnt-know-about-the-steubenville-rape-case-if-it-wasnt-for-the-blogger-who-complicated-things Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
References
The article used to be called "Rape of Savannah Dietrich" and is now "Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich". Can you have an assault OF someone? I would have thought that assault is usually ON someone, and that if so the title should be "Sexual assault on Savannah Dietrich". But I am less than 100% sure. What do you think? DBaK ( talk) 08:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
According to this document [2] - a court record - there never was a 'gag order': "Unfortunately, a great deal of misinformation has been disseminated to the public about this case, not the least of which is that a 'gag order' had been entered." the document is of course an inadmissible primary source - but we clearly need to check other sources, and ensure that we aren't perpetuating misinformation ourselves. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I'm still trying to wade through the sources, but does anyone have a clarification on what the initial sentence possibility was and what the plea deal was? Right now I'm looking at this but I can't determine what "The boys were to be sentenced on charges of first-degree sexual abuse, a felony, and misdemeanor voyeurism on Tuesday, but that has been delayed" refers to. Is that what they agreed to in the plea deal, or is that what it would have been had they not plead guilty? Ryan Vesey 23:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
This article appears to be conflating 2 different crimes. The Dietrich case has been resolved I think. . .The trial for the Steubenville rape (I think the rape happened the night of Aug 11, 2012) is not set until Feb. according to this CNN article [1]. R. Baley ( talk) 09:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
==Night of the rape== On August 11, 2012 Savannah Dietrich, 16, was drugged so that she could not later recall most events from the night. [1] She couldn't remember anything after midnight. [1] It was first clear that Dietrich was drunk around 10:00 or 10:30. [1] Witnesses reported that baseball players from Steubenville High School dared bystanders to urinate on Dietrich. [1] Dietrich left the party with football players from the high school after midnight. [1] Some witnesses reported that Dietrich needed assistance walking while another reported that she was asleep and carried out by Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond. [1] The football players briefly took Dietrich to a second party before bringing her to a third. [1] Dietrich awoke on the way to the third party long enough to vomit in the street. [1] One witness reported that Dietrich was left alone and topless for several minutes while another reported that Mays and Richmond held her hair while she vomited. [1] While heading to a third party, a witness for the prosecution declared that he recorded Mays assault Dietrich in the back of his Volkswagen Jetta. [1] Mays flashed Dietrich's breasts and used his fingers to penetrate her. [1] At the third party, Dietrich could not walk on her own, vomited, and toppled onto her side. [1] When Mays attempted to coax her into performing oral sex on him, she was unresponsive. [1] While Dietrich lied on the floor naked, witnesses stated that Mays exposed himself to her and that Richmond used his fingers to penetrate her. [1] Another athlete took photographs of the event. [1] He claimed that he did it so he could let Dietrich know what happened to her, but he deleted the images after showing them to several people. [1] Dietrich ended the night on a couch in the basement of the home with Mays initially alongside her. [1] She claimed that she woke the next day with no knowledge of the events that transpired the night before. [1] [1]
I concur, I think the source of the issue was this source I used (that triggered my creation of the article) that talks about both cases, and does a poor job (imo) of transitioning between the two cases in its story. I think both cases are probably notable and as they have been related to eachother in some sources, could have a brief mention/link to each other. http://jezebel.com/5969076/we-wouldnt-know-about-the-steubenville-rape-case-if-it-wasnt-for-the-blogger-who-complicated-things Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
References
The article used to be called "Rape of Savannah Dietrich" and is now "Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich". Can you have an assault OF someone? I would have thought that assault is usually ON someone, and that if so the title should be "Sexual assault on Savannah Dietrich". But I am less than 100% sure. What do you think? DBaK ( talk) 08:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
According to this document [2] - a court record - there never was a 'gag order': "Unfortunately, a great deal of misinformation has been disseminated to the public about this case, not the least of which is that a 'gag order' had been entered." the document is of course an inadmissible primary source - but we clearly need to check other sources, and ensure that we aren't perpetuating misinformation ourselves. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)