Media Doesn’t Do It’s Job, Buck Lies

What a surprise.  When the revelations about the rape case first came out, the newspapers told us that the call where the rapist admitted the rape couldn’t be used in court.  I challenged this assertion at the time http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…

Nobody wanted to believe me, the Buck apologists challenged me and the media didn’t do its’ job in checking this out.  

Well, gues what folks, I was right!!!

The reality is that the call to the rapist from the victim was totally admissible in court.  It’s just that Ken Buck had another agenda.

How do I, a civil lawyer know this the Buck people will ask?  Well, I will now tell you.

I had the priviledge this week of being chosen to sit on a jury.  Not just in the jury pool, but sit on a jury and decide the fate of a real life defendant and a real life accuser.  I was there.

Guess what, this kind of stuff is used all the time.  The type of call that the victim made in the Buck rape case even has a name.  It’s called a “Pre-Text” call.  The Lakewood Police Department even has a special room for making “Pre-Text” calls and special software to make and record the call.  My guess is that the Weld County District Attorney of the police department in Greeley has the same thing.

Here’s what happens.  The victim sits with a cop in a special room.  The cop dials up a service and enters a code and a case number and the victim’s phone number.  The outside service dials the number of the alleged perpetrator and makes it appear on the perpetrator’s phone like the call was coming from the victim’s cell phone number.  The number of the alleged perpetrator is dialed.  A conversation takes place.  The victim tries to get the alleged perpetrator to admit his crime.  The cop gives the victim questions to ask to make sure that the cop get what the cop needs to make a case.  The call is recorded.  

This is how the call to Buck’s alleged rapist was made. Apparently someone on Buck’s team has fed a line of crap to the reporters that this tape is inadmissible.  This makes it seem like it was less likely that Buck could suceed in his rape case and makes it seem more likey that what Buck did in this case was a judgment call which the DA can make.  

The press, as usual, swallows hook, line and sinker the crap that Buck’s people feed to them.  They don’t even bother to check out whether the tape could be used in court.  They just assume what the Buck people told them was true.  You all assumed it too.

Well guess what, it’s not true.  How do I know this?????

I got put on a criminal jury in an agravated incest case.  Guess what the main piece of evidence was?  You got it, a tape of a “Pre-Text” call between father (alleged perpetrator) and daughter (alleged victim) where the cop was listening in and recording the call.  These calls can be entered into evidence, just like I questioned weeks ago.  The jury listened to this tape several times.  It was a crucial part of the evidence.  Buck, your people fed the press a load of crap and they didn’t do their job.

So, shame on you Colorasdo media for not doing your job.  Buck could have prosecuted this case and had a tape where two times the pepetrator admitted that he had sex with the victim without her consent.   No doubt he at the very least would have plead to some charges or been convicted.  The guy admitted it.

Shame on you Buck.  You have lied.  You got a lot of explaining to do.  Why didn’t you prosecute this case when you had the rapist’s admission that he raped this woman and could have used it in court?  My guess, you didn’t because you didn’t like the victim who had fornicated before marriage and who you thought had had an abortion.

Buck, you are scum.  Media, you are just not doing your jobs.  I am seething.  It was only by luck that I found this out.  

Bennet people, you are stupid for not having followed up on this sooner.  Your commercials on this issue could have been much more forceful and damning.

And to the rape victim, I personally apologize that the system has failed you and that no one would listen to you.  

0 Shares

34 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. H-man says:

    Why did the Boulder DA’s office turn it down, too?  

    They are also not as bright as you are undoubtedly.

    Before you call Buck a liar and scum; the media as not doing their job; and Bennet people stupid, you might talk to any of the approximately 10 criminal lawyers who all came to the same conclusion. Perhaps you might learn something.  Maybe even some humility.  

    • Craig says:

      Who said the Boulder DA’s office reviewed the case?  Only Buck and his minions. The papers couldn’t confirm that. And by the way, who says Buck provided them a copy of the tape where the rapist admitted his crime twice, even if they did ask.  Even the Jeffco DA’s office wouldn’t refuse to prosecute where the defendant admitted the crime.  They did it on a much weaker case just this week.  And besides, who needs to check with another DA to decide whether to proseucte a case where you have a taped confession of the rapist?  Even if he did discuss it, he didn’t give all the facts and he was just looking for cover.

      I know you support Beck.  I know you want to change the narrative.  But Buck  is scum and this once and for all proves it.  

      Please enlighten me?  Tell me why Buck refused to prosecute a rape case when he has the rapist on tape twice unequivocaly admitting to rape????  Please, tell me.

      As far as the genius part, not really.  I’ve already said I know nothing about criminal law.  I know only that the media isn’t doing it’s job.  I know only that Buck and his minions tried to cover up a problem by saying the tape wasn’t admissible.  I know they lied.  I know Buck is scum.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.

      • No2Dems says:

        Please tell us the direct quote the alleged suspect made on the pre-text phone call. Oh you can’t you have no information on this case just what you have been told. How can a lawyer not know anything about criminal law? Just because you are an ambulance chaser you didn’t learn criminal procedure in law school?

        The case was not provable beyond a reasonable doubt. Majority of Buck haters including this site have agreed. You guys sound like 9-11 conspiracy and holocaust deniers.  It is truely unfortunate that you are so twisted that you think Buck would not take a case because of a previous abortion and pre-marital sex. That is ridiculous look at that statement. What about the Angie Zapata case?  Buck does what he thinks is right for his community under law. Wish Bennet had tried that while serving as appointed senator.

        Now let’s turn our attention to the statements made by Buck. Buyers remorse the best choice of words? No! Potentially accurate?

        Let’s take another look at Ms. Corban’s statements regarding Buck’s statements. Now remember Ms. Corban is a highly qualified leader in the victim advocate community and is a survivor of a sex assault.   Here is the link for the drones to ignore again. Remember liberals only like and listen to victims and women who agree with their twisted point of view and spew hate and discontent for conservatives.

         http://www.nationalreview.com/

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      1-Boulder didn’t “turn it down.”  It was never theirs to prosecute, or turn down.  What they did was review the evidence at Buck’s request and agree it was probably not strong enough to prosecute.  

      2-As to whether the pretext call was admissible.  After seeing the debate here a couple weeks ago, I concluded it would have been admissible.  But that doesn’t make it a “confession” in the sense of a damning admission to the police.  The defense is free to challenge it as having been obtained under false pretenses (as it actually was) and that they lead the witness, etc.  It’s up to the jury to decide what weight to give it.  By no means is it a smoking gun, like a fully Mirandized confession would have been.

       3-I consistently said I agree with Buck’s decision, while being amazed at his trash talk.   Tell the victim that you can’t meet the people’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury.  It’s a high bar.   But don’t go potty mouth with crap about “buyer’s remorse.”  And don’t go earlier in the tape with the victim accusing her of having had an abortion, and implying that her abortion (which was apparently a miscarriage) is why you won’t prosecute.

        4-And as a Bennet volunteer, I will only respond to Craig’s claim that we are stupid by saying I refuse to have my intelligence questioned by a man who…by his own admission…was too dumb to get off jury duty.;-)

      • Ralphie says:

        What they did was review the evidence at Buck’s request and agree it was probably not strong enough to prosecute.

        Or is all we have an assertion from Ken Buck?  

      • PERA hopeful says:

        I’ve been called many time, made it into the panel twice, got dismissed both times, and was bitterly disappointed both times.  Craig’s a civil lawyer, and I bet he was thrilled to get on the jury.

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          But after Craig’s dullardish snipe at Team Bennet, I couldn’t resist that old line — which I know you have heard many lawyers use.

          I in fact served as foreman of a jury in a death penalty case and every lawyer I know envied me.  I regard jury service as an even more solemn obligation of citizenship than voting because you literally have a fellow citizens life (in our case) liberty or property in your hands.

            But

          4-And as a Bennet volunteer, I will only respond to Craig’s claim that we are stupid by saying I refuse to have my intelligence questioned by a man who…by his own admission…was too dumb to get off jury duty.;-)

          is still a good line!

          • PERA hopeful says:

            Don’t think I could do a death penalty case.  

            It was a good line, I just thought it wasn’t applicable in this situation.

            • VoyageurVoyageur says:

              We deadlocked at the third stage of the penalty phase, where you must find 12-0, beyond a reasonable doubt, that aggravation outweighed mitigation.   Four of us, including me, felt it did not.  Upshot is that he is now serving five consecutive “life” sentences of 40 years before being eligible for parole.  He’ll be eligible for parole at age 231.  

              It was truly a life changing experience.

              • PERA hopeful says:

                My dear departed stay-at-home mom got called for jury duty once, and she was seated on a rape jury.  She seemed to enjoy it greatly and told us all about each day’s events at the dinner table.  There was one day when they had to pass the rapist’s underwear around the jury and that creeped her out pretty bad, but she still told the tale with some relish.

                Someday I will have retired from the law long enough that I may be deemed fit for jury duty.  I’ll never be on a death penalty jury, though.  

      • AristotleAristotle says:

        3-I consistently said I agree with Buck’s decision, while being amazed at his trash talk.   Tell the victim that you can’t meet the people’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury.  It’s a high bar.   But don’t go potty mouth with crap about “buyer’s remorse.”  And don’t go earlier in the tape with the victim accusing her of having had an abortion, and implying that her abortion (which was apparently a miscarriage) is why you won’t prosecute.

        This NEVER would have been an issue if Buck had conducted himself like a professional. This was bad not only on that level, but also because it exposed his prejudices against women who don’t live up to his arbitrary sense of morals. That’s a major character flaw for someone seeking higher office.

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          and nobody except those with a partisan ax to grind has disputed it.  Such back-up reviews are fairly common among DAs and Buck was not a candidate for the Senate at that time.  If it were a lie, I imagine Stan Garnet would have raced to denounce buck.  

        • No2Dems says:

          You claim that Buck did not prosecute this case due to Buck’s beliefs against women and abortion correct? So can you name any other cases that he did not prosecute due to these alleged beliefs? No? Oh so this alleged victim must be the only woman who has had an abortion that was involved in a potentially criminal episode during Buck’s tenure as Weld County DA? Doesn’t make much sense to me.

          Let’s take it a step further. If this was truely how Buck handled his legal decision making don’t you think there would be other people with similar experiences?  But there isn’t right?

          In fact it is the opposite. There are other victims and Democrats who are standing up for Ken for what they belive is an inaccurately portrayal of his character.  

          In fact only one unhappy customer after all these years sounds like a pretty good record. Also thanks in part to Ken the crime rate was reduced fifty percent.

          Just like the majority of your other arguments when they are slowly deconstructed it becomes readily apparent you are full of it.    

          • sxp151 says:

            it still matters, even if they don’t kill a bunch of other people.

            Really, your logic falls apart if hit with a feather. It’s like a spiderweb, if spiders made webs out of shit.

          • AristotleAristotle says:

            Voyageur’s point is about how Buck conducted himself with the victim. The “buyer’s remorse” remark. The apparent judgment of her character. As V said, Buck could have just said the evidence was thin and had a poor chance of conviction, and kept all that other stuff to himself. But he didn’t, and now we know something about his poor character.

            There don’t have to be other cases for me to point to. I’m familiar with the realities of rape and sexual assault, namely that this society still has a significant number of people who believe the victims bring it upon themselves, that police and prosecutors often are the ones with these beliefs, and that the shame of it all often keeps women from coming forward. And among those who do, some have to muster all their courage to do just that. If they get this kind of treatment from the DA, most will quietly go away.

            Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. I don’t know that Buck’s done this with other cases as Weld DA, but I’d set the odds at 2-1 that he has. Actions like this reflect deep-seated prejudices. I find them reprehensible.

            This election, ultimately, is about the issues and that’s why I voted for Bennet, but I would be able to live with Buck if I thought he had stronger morals.

            • No2Dems says:

              Bit of a depserate attempt at a huge exaggeration Ari. That is not a fair statement at all. Unfortunately rape victims are sometimes afraid to come forward and there  are people who believe they bring it upon themselves. However, what the democrats have done with the alleged victim for political purposes does not help with victims coming forward, but you don’t seem to worry about that. Trust me I deal with victims of crime every day and I have never once heard of a victim say they were afraid to come forward because of Ken Buck. I can honestly say that Ken Buck is not somebody who thinks that rape victims bring stuff upon themselves. That is an unfair rumor that you are attempting to spread for political purposes.  

              • AristotleAristotle says:

                As far as what’s happened with this case, politics is a hardball game and this is the sort of thing that candidates can expect to deal with on the campaign trail. Some of the claims are exaggerated, it’s true; but so are some of the claims regarding Bennet’s voting record and what exactly the Obama administration is trying to accomplish. So were the Swift Boat claims about John Kerry six years ago.

                I’m not saying any of it is right; but these are how these battles are conducted. Both sides do it, neither side is blameless, and so long as unlimited money is allowed in politics, this is how the game is going to be played. You win some and you lose some.

                • No2Dems says:

                  He either voted for something or did not.

                   I think it is a bad habit to get into of saying untrue things about a candidate and disguising it as “opinion.” It is a slippery slope. Where would you draw the line? I could give opinions of your guy based off of rumors related to his previous employer etc. but I prefer not to because I think I can win based off of articulating logic against your opinions. And I think you kinda appreciate that I can be reasonable and not purely emotional.  

                  • AristotleAristotle says:

                    Things like “Obamacare is socialism!!!!11!one!!” I’ve studied socialism extensively, and this ain’t it. And socialism is so broad that throwing the word around like this is meaningless, meant to scare people who don’t know much about it.

                    You’re allowed your opinions that health care reform isn’t a good thing, but you’re not allowed to exaggerate and distort what actually is happening with it. Same with TARP (which was a Bush requested bill), the stimulus, and so forth.

                    Don’t confuse the propaganda with the facts.

                    • No2Dems says:

                      But obamacare redistributes wealth. If it was such a popular thing go through the proper procedures and make it an amendment. There are possible severe consequences imposed on us by Bennet’s vote in support of the bill and people deserve to be informed of them.  Stimulus was wrong and failed.  

                    • AristotleAristotle says:

                      than no, there is no “wealth redistribution” taking place.

  2. bjwilson83 says:

    This seems to vindicate Buck even more. Pretty sure that what you are describing is called “entrapment”. So now it comes out the the perpetrators admission was coerced!

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      So now it comes out the the perpetrators admission was coerced!

        There is no coercion involved.  If you summon two IQ points for a rare meeting, look up the difference between entrapment and cooercion.  Andf there is nothing “coming out”

      This has been reported for years and thoroughly discussed in the campaign.

      Having people as stupid as you in his campaign is apparently one of the crosses Buck has to bear.  

      • colawman says:

        pre-text phone call. There was never an issue of the admissability of the phone call. Certainly the defense would have attempted to have it suppressed but highly unlikely.  Phone statements by suspects to cops which involve confessions or incriminating statements are rarely, if ever, suppressed, even in the absence of Miranda warnings. Sorry I missed out on the prior debate.  

        On to the jury duty. I too would love the opportunity but for obvious reasons I will never get the chance. My only hope and perhaps PERA’s will be a Grand Jury seat. Not the same but at least a taste of that which we desire…deliberation with “Twelve Angry Men.”

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          wasn’t that the pre-text call wouldn’t be admitted, the prior debate convinced me it probably would have been.  But I argued it doesn’t have the weight of a “confession”–which implies a statement given to the police, especially with full Miranda wrappings.   Such a confession is very powerful stuff to a jury.  This is just another he said, she said.  Defense is free to argue that she conned him into saying things just to call her down.  Legally, it’s not quite entrapment but the concept is quite the same.  And remember, he never knew the cops were listening.  She was free to lead him on.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.